Thursday, February 23, 2012

What role is the US playing in Syria and why?


The US' public position on Syria has been widely circulated and is well known by now.
"We don't want to take actions that would contribute to the further militarization of Syria because that could take the country down a dangerous path," White House press secretary Jay Carney said. "But we don't rule out additional measures if the international community should wait too long and not take the kind of action that needs to be taken."

The administration previously had said flatly that more weapons are not the answer to the Syrian situation. There had been no mention of "additional measures."
It is also well known that formal US treaty ally Turkey and US colonies Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been substantially supporting the opposition, and this foreign support has helped fund and organize the armed resistance to the Syrian government. The US has been at least quietly supportive of this assistance. There are persistent rumors that the US, particularly Jeffrey Feltman, the US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, has had a major role in coordinating this campaign.

I do not have evidence that these rumors are true. My expectation is that decades from now records will be declassified that detail US/Israeli involvement and direction of this campaign, just as almost half a century after the US' 1953 toppling of Iran's Mossedegh, contrary to vehement contemporary denials, the US involvement in that program was made public.

But quiet support in the widely known actions of the US' allies and colonies is enough to establish complicity even before evidence of direct involvement which may become available in the future. Here is Hillary Clinton expressing support for the efforts of others to support Syria's armed opposition:
"There will be increasingly capable opposition forces. They will from somewhere, somehow find the means to defend themselves as well as begin offensive measures," she told reporters after taking part in a London conference on Somalia.
"Somewhere, somehow" in this case means from the US' allies and colonies. There are some points that bear repeating about supporting armed resistance to any government, good or bad.

1) Armed resistance vastly increases the amount of deaths in any anti-government campaign. Syria's armed opposition creating actual firefights with the government has increased the total number of people who've died in this conflict by at least tenfold and quite plausibly 100-fold.

2) Every sovereign government, good or bad, will forcibly resist foreign-supported armed opposition to its rule. If foreigners were to provide weapons or funds to acquire weapons to anti-US government forces in Miami or Seattle and those forces managed to incorporate those cities into "liberated territory", or managed to remove all security forces loyal to Washington DC from those cities and surrounding areas, then Barack Obama's campaign to regain control of those cities would look very similar to Assad's campaigns to restore effective central government authority over Homs and Hama. The rhetoric would also be the same. Obama would call any such armed resistance foreign-influenced traitors and terrorists.

Barack Obama just relinquishing those cities would not be a consideration, much less would his leaving power be. US colonies of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Kuwait and others would behave identically to Obama or Assad except for differences in the amounts and types of weapons at their disposal.

Would there still be an armed resistance of there was no outside support? Possibly. Clearly any armed resistance would be smaller. Clearly fewer people would be dying. An easy response to an argument that an intervention is having little to no effect on the outcome is to ask, then why are they bothering? Why are they wasting money?

It is safe to say that at the very least ten times as many Syrians are dying in the current conflict as would have died if the US' allies and colonies did not intervene. If 7,000 people have died, at least 6,300 would be alive but for a campaign the Barack Obama administration, did not disapprove of even if it did not organize it.

That raises the question of why. If we start from the presumption that Barack Obama does not favor more Syrians dying to fewer all things being equal, then what makes things unequal? What could the US gain from armed conflict in Syria that Barack Obama considers worth thousands of Syrian lives?

On this question Obama administration officials are open that they hope a future Syria will not be aligned with Iran. Here is Feltman on Syria and Iran:
"Syria is essential to the extremely negative role that Iran has been able to play in the region. Take Hezbollah. The transit routes for the arms to Hezbollah are via Syria. The facilitation that Iran gives to Hezbollah to undermine the state of Lebanon, to put Israel at risk, to basically destabilize the region, it comes via Syria. Syria is basically Iran's only friend."
Feltman's ideas about Iran playing an extremely negative role in the region and Syria's help in playing that role bears closer inspection. We will see how profoundly anti-democratic Feltman's contention is.

We can start with Lebanon, a country that Feltman thinks is being undermined by Hezbollah. Lebanon had elections that were considered fair in 2009. The electoral alliance that Hezbollah participated in won 54.5% of the popular vote. (Barack Obama beat John McCain with 52.9% of the popular vote.) While Feltman believes Hezbollah's arms are a threat, the people of Lebanon have not voted to support Feltman. Most of Lebanon's voters do not believe Hezbollah is an undermining, rather than representative influence. Feltman hopes though that Assad's overthrow will allow the United States to overrule Lebanon's voters.

From Lebanon, let's look at Iran which Feltman believes plays an extremely negative role in the region. Iran's government represents people who, by a seven to one margin, do not consider Israel a legitimate country.
18. Level of agreement - The state of Israel is illegitimate and should not exist.

Strong Agreement: 51.9%
Mild Agreement: 14.6% (total agree, 66.5%)
Neutral: 21.1%
Mild Disagreement: 4.6%
Strong Disagreement: 3.9% (total disagree 8.5%)
Barack Obama and Jeffrey Feltman disagree with the people of Iran and describe Iran's policies that are consistent with those beliefs to be extremely negative. But Obama and Feltman would disagree with any democratic or representative government of Iran.

This direct question asked of the Iranian population gives a very stark result that is very difficult to minimize. Since then, I've never seen this direct question asked again in a publicly available source of the Iranian population or any population in Israel's region.

On the other hand the Palestinians are mostly Sunni, and Arab. If there is an important distance between Sunni and Shiite and between Arab and Persian, then the populations of majority Sunni Arab states are likely to consider Israel illegitimate by even larger margins.

The questions we do see asked of Arab populations are more constrained, such as this from Brookings:
Which of the following statements is closer to your view?

24% - Prepared for peace if Israel is willing to return all 1967 territories including East Jerusalem, and Arab governments should put more effort into this

43% - Prepared for peace if Israel is willing to return all 1967 territories including East Jerusalem, but Israel will never give up these territories easily

23% - Even if Israel returns all 1967 territories, Arabs should continue to fight
But Israel is not willing to return all 1967 territories including East Jerusalem. Israel continuously says it is not and the respondents to the poll believe it is not.

So what the Brookings poll asks is "If something was true, that you know is in fact not true and will not be true, would you in that imaginary world be 'prepared for peace' with Israel?". 67% of Arab respondents in one form or other responded yes to that question. 67% of Arabs would, in that imaginary world, be 'prepared for peace' with Israel.

Note that 'prepared for peace' does not imply that they would even then consider Israel legitimate, that they would want to maintain that peace if circumstances such as Israel's current military edge were to change, or that they would not support efforts to end Israel's military advantage over its neighbors. What is being asked by Brookings is not a meaningful question. Every Western poll I've seen since 2006 supposedly asking non-Jewish Middle East populations about their acceptance of Israel has been flawed in this way.

Respondents pointedly, deliberately and misleadingly are not asked by Brookings if they accept Israel in the real world. Here, Brookings is actively working to mislead its Western audiences.

The Brookings poll is not inconsistent with and does not contradict the Readers Digest poll. It is a safe assumption that if asked the same direct question Readers Digest asked the Iranians, the people of Syria would disagree with Feltman and Obama about Israel and about what kind of role would be positive or negative even more vehemently than the people of Iran.

These polls and these non-Jewish populations of the Middle East expressing disagreement with Barack Obama and Jeffrey Feltman bring us back to the question of why things are not equal, why Barack Obama would prefer to see thousands of Syrians die than oppose the formation of an armed resistance in Syria.

If the goal is to prevent Syria from playing the negative role in the region Iran plays, then there are at least three ways to accomplish this. One might be a democratic Syria that agrees with Obama and Feltman that opposing Israel is a negative effect on the region. The US and its supporters lie when they present this as the outcome they hope for. There is no reason to believe Syria's voters would agree with Obama and Feltman about what kind of role Syria should play in the region and good reason to believe they would disagree.

There are two other ways: 2) Syria can come under the control of a pro-US dictatorship, rejoining the colonial structure that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt (for now), Jordan and Kuwait are part of. This is the colonial structure Iran escaped when the US-imposed Shah was overthrown and which made it possible for Iran to now pursue, with Syria, what Feltman and Obama consider a negative role in the region.

Short of that, Syria might, the US, Feltman and Obama may hope, ultimately reach what Obama would like to see in Egypt, a government that has a democratic facade but whose policy on issues the US cares about are set by the United States. Juan Cole and the Heritage Foundation favorably describe this arrangement as "partly free" for Morocco and Kuwait. Jimmy Carter openly supports this arrangement for Egypt. Cole doesn't openly advocate this outcome but refuses to offer any criticism of this arrangement if, as it has promised, Egypt's military was to bring it about.

The last way is that Syria can be destroyed. Whatever else happens, the destruction of a country is the most common outcome of a civil war that results from foreign-supported armed opposition fighting the government. Syria may never have a government that agrees with Feltman or Obama about what constitutes a negative effect on the region, but if its ability to impact the region beyond its borders is crippled, that would be the next best thing.

Hopefully Syria will, despite the efforts of the US, its allies and its colonies, avoid a further escalation of its civil war. Other than the September 2001 attacks on the US homeland, the US has not suffered much to deter it from policies that result in large amounts of death of Arabs and Muslims to subjugate the region on Israel's behalf. I hope this lack of consequences for the US continues, because I oppose people dying.

I also hope though, that the US one way or another stops being an evil nation, a nation that would rather see thousands of Syrians die then see them live in a country free to play what Feltman and Obama (but not Syria's own population) consider a negative role in the region by threatening Israel.

96 comments:

richardstevenhack said...

Agree with this post pretty much completely, especially the part about "if its ability to impact the region beyond its borders is crippled, that would be the next best thing."

That's exactly what I've been saying over at Race For Iran.

Lidia said...

I remember another poll (Arabs, 2010) about the biggest threat where USA scored  88% and Israel  77%, while Iran about 9%.



http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2010/08_arab_opinion_poll_telhami/08_arab_opinion_poll_telhami.pdf



And unlike polls about Iraqis being mostly happy in 2004, the results look like both logical and fact-based sound to me. 

Dermot Moloney said...

Nice to see that you have had a change of heart lidia.

Dermot Moloney said...

Are you implying that iran is popular with the arab publics?

Arnold Evans said...

Your efforts actually are making this a better blog.  You're doing the best you can, and I appreciate that.

Pretty much all of your substantive criticisms are wrong though, for reasons explained in the original post.

Dermot Moloney said...

"at least 6,300 would be alive but for a campaign the Barack Obama administration, did not disapprove of even if it did not organize it."

Where is your source for this?

Lidia said...

DM ONE more time cannot read. I am NOT changing my heart, no more then DM, his, when he has read about a poll of happy Iraqis in 2004. 

Arnold Evans said...

My argument in support of that is higher in the same post.  See if you can find it.

Lidia said...

About not honest questions, regarding Israel 1) "return to 1967 borders" and 2)"permitting the return of refuges". A very good article http://www.merip.org/mero/mero022312

Several examples of how "liberal" "Justice" court of Israel ruled about Israel being right to robbing Palestinians' on the EB (1) and forbidding them to have a normal family life just to  because they are NOT Jews (2) 

Arnold Evans said...

But I can't teach you to read. I can't make you smarter than you are.

Lidia said...

Sorry for misspelling , Israel ...robbing Palestinians' on the WB 

Dermot Moloney said...

"You're doing the best you can"

Id like to say the same to you but your best strikes me as being someone else's worst :/
"Pretty much all of your substantive criticisms are wrong though, for reasons explained in the original post."Nothing in the post counters my criticisms. In fact my criticisms were aimed at the post and showed the post to be flawed, so trying to used the flawed post as a defense is an odd move.Also what three people sided with you when we discussed the meaning of the nyt article arnold?Also where did you get your figure 6,300 figure, unless you provide a source i going to presume you just made it up.

Dermot Moloney said...

Actually lidia you are, you seemed to disagree with me quite strongly when i claimed that most arabs were willing to accept a two state solution in return for peace and the creation of Palestine.

Yet here you are stating that a poll which found this is logical.

Dermot Moloney said...

Considering i am able to point out the flaws in your posts my intelligence is quite adequate :)

I for example never stated something as foolish as ""I haven't seen any verified fact that is inconsistent with Syria dealing with peaceful protests mostly reasonably."

Sorry arnold but that truly was a dim thing to say.

Also do you believe most arabs have a positive view of iran and its policies?

Dermot Moloney said...

(Sigh) So no source, just a number plucked from thin air from arnolds fantasy riddled mind.

Lidia said...

For DM specially one more time slowly 

1) I am NOT "stating that a poll which found this is logical"
2) I copy paste my REAL statement

"the biggest threat where USA scored 88% and Israel 77%, while Iran about 9%.....the results look like both logical and fact-based sound to me."

Could DM see the difference between words "the poll" (as a whole) and "the results" (cited by me which have NOTHING to do with Arabs liking 2-state solution (aka bantustans)?

Please, note that my trust to "the results" i.e. that Arabs are NOT afraid of Iran (which is NOT and was NOT) started aggressive wars against them for 200 years, and that they are VERY afraid of USA and Israel (which both are and were) was based on logic and facts. One more time for DM - it IS logical to be afraid of someone who is bombing you and was bombing you many times before. 

But it is NOT logical for Arabs to agree with Palestine turned into colonist settler state+some tiny bantustans - so the answer could NOT be to  such honest  question, but to very improbable and dishonest one, so the answer was mostly non-relevant. Of course, Arnold explained it much better than me, but, one more time, DM is not good in reading (or in understanding English texts, at least) :(

Dermot Moloney said...

"DM is not good in reading"
My reading us quite fine, your writing however is not.

Again recall how you wrote saddam instead of sadat.

It was actually at that occasion that you started to accuse me of misreading you.

However the facts show i did no such thing, it was you who made the error. 

Arnold Evans said...

Me: "Respondents pointedly, deliberately and misleadingly are not asked by Brookings if they accept Israel in the real world. "

Dermot: They are, it is quite clear, most arabs would accept israel in return for peace and for palestine to exist.

If you have a poll that you think supports this, I'd like to see it.

Arnold Evans said...

Question for Dermot and any other supporters of US policy who may choose to answer:

About Syria: If Assad can win an election, he should stay.  If he cannot he should go.

I feel the same about the governments Dermot doesn't want to call colonies in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, UAE and others.

Do you feel the same?  If you do, do you think Obama, Feltman and the US foreign policy community agree with us?

Dermot Moloney said...

Arnold you still havent answered my question yet, what three people?

Arnold Evans said...

I thought it was three. It was just two.  You can look up who in the post entitled "Egypt, Democracy and this NGO dispute"

Dermot Moloney said...

"
On this, three people agreed with my interpretation of the statement. None agreed with yours.


Maybe you're just stupid."Throwing around insults, and just before you did you were the one to make an error, smooth arnold, very smooth.As for saying it was two, this is questionable for Castellio's comment isnt exactly clear, perhaps if he or she is reading this they can give their opinion.

Arnold Evans said...

Nothing is clear.  Castellio isn't clear. Carter isn't clear.  This whole English language thing becomes difficult for you when you come here to try to defend US Middle East policy.

We still have my questions: any other polls and upthread should the rulers of the states you claim are not colonies leave if they cannot win elections - if you agree with me that they should, do you think Barack Obama and Jeffrey Feltman agree with me?

Dermot Moloney said...

Dont get upset just because you made yourself look foolish with your "three" comment.

"Nothing is clear."
Not true."Castellio isn't clear. "Not exactly."Carter isn't clear."Carter was very clear, you just didnt get it."We still have my questions"Quite impatient for someone who makes quite a habit of dodging questions, even trying to get you to answer the "three" thing took some time before you admitted that you were wrong.Also i do believe that leaders should be accountable to elections. I dont know exactly what obama thinks, he probably would prefer this option above others.  

Lidia said...

Arnold, I would not bother :) Not only DM does not know what "I think" means in English. He also believe that the the same pollster, who claimed in 2004 that Iraqis were quite happy, is telling the truth about how Libyans are happy now (also "a year after"). 

On the other hand, how else one could with serious mien defend "humanitarian" imperialist wars and claim that Saudi rulers are not lackeys. 

Dermot Moloney said...

Lidia i know what " i think" means, by saying it carter was showing that he thought the military was going to behave in a certain action and that certain events were likely to transpire.

He was not saying what he wanted to occur.

"He also believe that the the same pollster, who claimed in 2004 that Iraqis were quite happy"

There is nothing wrong with claiming such a thing. Other polls reflected similar things at the time.

And such a claim does not discredit its findings even though you want it to.

The fact is most libyans do see their lives as being better now, if you had your way gaddafi would still be in charge and the libyans would be worse off.

I f you have evidence to show that over 50% of libyans feel differently please provide it and i will change my mind.

Also you didnt answer my questions lidia, do you feel russia should stop sending weapons to syria and do you think assad should step down?

Lidia said...

DM says he does not know what Obama thinks, but DM sure knows what Carter thinks (even better than Carter himself) :)

Carter thinks that he thinks that



"Full civilian control’ is a little excessive, I think" Carter did NOT said "the military was going to behave in a certain action and that certain events were likely to transpire", but DM still knows better. Carter did NOT said it, but DM knows that Carter MEANT it. End of story.



And if DM has a source which was NOT telling us how happy Iraqis were in 2004, but are telling us how happy Libyan are NOW (the same year after as for Iraq) I would like to see it. MY source which NOT "reflected similar things at the time" about happy Iraqis, is telling me something else than DM's source, but DM, even though he thinks NOW (not in 2004) that USA colonial war against Iraq was not OK, still believes that the pollster of happy Iraqis year after is right. DM states "The fact is most libyans do see their lives as being better now" - the fact IS, his source are the same which claimed Iraqis were better off in 2004.

Oh, I am SO tied of endless  repeating elementary things for DM, and I am afraid DM still could NOT get it.

Lidia said...

I am NOT obliged to answer to DM who is NOT able to read plain English anyway.

But I could say, that it is up to SYRIANS who should rule them, and NOT to me, and NOT to DM, to Obama the butcher of Iraq , to the GCC dictators and to Zionists.

Russians are sending weapons to Syrian government who is fighting the foreign-armed and supported sectarian revolt (foreigners being the the same butcher and the same dictators).

USA IS busy sending Saudis and Bahrain rulers weapons to crash UNARMED and domestic protesters. DM could be NOT aware (after all, he uses his own excellent sources which had told him that aggression against Iraq was a good thing to do), but there are protests in Saudi Arabia too, and they got crashed and protesters murdered by the same forces who demand Assad's toppling, and the murder is done with full support of USA, which also demand Assad toppling.

Lidia said...

Some interesting news about Libya http://www.democracynow.org/2012/2/21/as_calls_for_intervention_in_syria

it should be noted that Democracy Now during the NATO rape of Libya has turned to mouthpiece of pro-NATO propaganda (just as now they do virtually the same regarding Syria). Even now they started with some "nice news" from Libya. But when the rape is done, it seems that  Democracy Now feel they could let some facts to come into picture. Note that  Vijay Prashad is NOT the principal foe of so-called "humanitarian interventions". He even says  "If we can’t go back and evaluate what has happened, I think a lot of people around the world are afraid of going forward into another intervention, where the lessons of Libya have not been learned" - that is, his position is more of SAVING the very possibility of misusing "human rights" sham for imperialist goals - he wants to investigate in order to made "a lot of people around the world" NOT afraid of such "humanitarian" bombing.

But while SOME supporters of such bombings would at least ask for investigation of NATO's bombing victims, USA do NOT. I wonder, WHY? S. Rice claims  "NATO and its partners, save tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Libyan lives". She gives NO source, but I suppose it seems as gospel by such people as DM. If she is SO sure of it, why do not look and see how many lives USA bombs "saved"? Of course, she is being utterly dishonest in her excuse, citing "Libyans" who should ask for it. So-called Libyan government is fully in the pocket of USA/NATO, being installed by their bombs. Only a moron would expect they would ask for investigation of NATO bombing victims. It is like saying that Franco should ask for investigation of victims of Guernica's bombing by Luftwaffe.

Dermot Moloney said...

"I am NOT obliged to answer to DM who is NOT able to read plain English anyway."
Lidia we went through this before, i certainly can read plain english, you however seem to have great difficulty when it comes to writing as shown when you wrote saddam instead of sadat. :)

"But I could say, that it is up to SYRIANS who should rule them"

So you do believe that assad should allow free elections.

"and NOT to DM"

When did i say it was up to me?

"Russians are sending weapons to Syrian government who is fighting the foreign-armed and supported sectarian revolt"

Lida by making such comments you are showing yourself to be a true hypocrite, i truly do look down you.

Russia is giving weapons to a dictatorship which is then using those weapons to attack civilians ( please consult with hrw), you can try to sugar coat it all you want but that is the reality of the situation.

"USA IS busy sending Saudis and Bahrain rulers weapons to crash UNARMED and domestic protesters."

Such aid should cease, however you again are a hypocrite for criticising this and not criticising russias vile actions of sending arms to a dictatorship which is killing far more than those two nations combined and who is also killing "UNARMED and domestic protesters."

Arnold (who has difficulty counting small numbers it seems) like you tried to imply that the assad government was not using violence against unarmed protesters but he was quickly put in his place.

"(after all, he uses his own excellent sources which had told him that aggression against Iraq was a good thing to do)"

Lol, lidia dont act dim, my sources did not do such a thing, my sources offered a wide range of opinions and views.

You rather weakly tried to imply judith miller was one of my sources, small little problem there though lidia, i never read any of her articles in the run up to the war.

Another problem was that i thought at the time that the iraq war was the wrong thing to do.

So lidia please stop making things up, ok ;)

Dermot Moloney said...

"it should be noted that Democracy Now during the NATO rape of Libya has turned to mouthpiece of pro-NATO propaganda"
Lidia are you really so fickle to think that any information that clashes with yours is propaganda, wise up, you and democracy now just had different views over what was best for the libyan people.

They ended up being right and you ended up being wrong.

You can use the word rape all you want, but the fact remains that in this scenario you were the one applauding the action which would have caused excess distress, in a way you were the supporter of rape.

svenbali said...

 How was intervening in Libya right?

Dermot Moloney said...

Because polling evidence shows that most libyans now feel that their lives are better now than they did a year ago under gaddafi.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/behind-the-numbers/post/poll-watcher-libya-cheers-revolution-americans-hesitant-on-syria-iran/2012/02/01/gIQApiQsFR_blog.html 

Lidia said...

svenbali, just in case you have not read the tread, the poll is done by the same firm which said that in 2004 (a year after, like in Libyan poll) Iraqis were as well "better now than they did a year ago under" Saddam. For DM it does not matter, even though NOW he is not thinking that "intervening" in Iraq was right. But I suppose it could be relevant to you.

Lidia said...

NYT - and they should know about it

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/world/middleeast/israel-both-hopeful-and-fearful-about-unrest-in-syria.html


"Nearly a year into the Syrian uprising, the predominant view in Israel today is the former, that Mr. Assad must go, not only because he has killed thousands of civilians, but because he is a linchpin in the anti-Israel Iranian power network that includes Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Palestinian groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad"

Of course, both NYT and Zionists in Israel do not give a damn about Syrians, but at least they are more open than DM. DM is saying the same, but, instead of admitting the REAL reason why he wants Assad toppled, he tries to put the wool over our eyes and got caught in his own excuses for dictators friendly for USA/Israel. At least Zionists do not work SO hard to cover their priorities.  

of course, given Zionists constant mass-murder of Palestinians, Lebanese and so on, with the full support of NYT, their false reason about "civilians" sounds esp. gross

Dermot Moloney said...

"For DM it does not matter"
Lidia when did i say it didnt matter, the poll does matter for it helps to show what iraqis felt at that time period.

" even though NOW he is not thinking that "intervening" in Iraq was right."

Yes, because the most recent iraqi poll which i linked to showed that iraqis felt things were worse now.

Again the poll is the most recent piece of information and that most recent piece of information shows that libyans feel their lives are better now, something that would have not occurred if you had your way.

I also notice in this entire back and forth between us you have not shown any evidence to show over 50% of libyans feel differently.

Dermot Moloney said...

"Of course, both NYT and Zionists in Israel do not give a damn about Syrians"
Like yourself, you cant even bring yourself to criticise russias aid to the syrian dictatorship.

"DM is saying the same, but, instead of admitting the REAL reason why he wants Assad toppled"

Lidia my reasons are based around trying to keep human distress to a minimum, unlike yours.

"he tries to put the wool over our eyes and got caught in his own excuses for dictators friendly for USA/Israel."

Lol, lidia it is you who got caught out, i am consistent, you are not. My attitude towards syria before the conflict was the same as it was towards all the other nations in the region, that they the rulers should step down and allow for free elections.

Other nations in turn should try to urge them to make this move.

When syria started to commit mass human rights abuses my attitude by views changed in response to its actions however they would have done the same if kuwait or uae were committing the same level of abuse as syria.

You on the otherhand have shown yourself to be a complete and utter hypocrite, you are not even subtle about it.

You give out about giving aid to dictators but when your nation does it you fail to condemn it, when give out about oppressive dictatorship oppressing their people yet you turn around and start acting defensive towards syria.

Basically lidia if anything you said about your views on dictatorships were true the syrian government should be a major target for condemnation along with russia giving weapons to it at this time.

But this does not occur for you are ,unlike me, a hypocrite you does not care about the people in the region.

"their false reason about "civilians" sounds esp. gross"

Considering you are implying that the civilians being killed by assads forces are not truly civilians your views on the matter are also gross.

Arnold Evans said...

Wow Lidia, thanks. You've teased an interesting statement from Dermot that I'd like to look at more closely.

Lol, lidia it is you who got caught out, i am consistent, you are not. My attitude towards syria before the conflict was the same as it was towards all the other nations in the region, that they the rulers should step down and allow for free elections.

Other nations in turn should try to urge them to make this move.

When Syria started to commit mass human rights abuses my attitude by views changed in response to its actions however they would have done the same if Kuwait or UAE were committing the same level of abuse as Syria.

You on the otherhand have shown yourself to be a complete and utter hypocrite, you are not even subtle about it.


So Dermot, you haven't yet critcized the US' support for dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, UAE, Egypt and others that I describe as colonies.

Feel free to do so now. Is the US wrong for supporting dictatorships in these countries?

What is your explanation of why the US supports these dictatorships?

Interestingly, you're claiming that if, say, Iraq was to fund an armed opposition movement that was able to clear Kuwaiti territory of Kuwaiti forces and Kuwait used force to regain control of its territory from that armed opposition, then you'd criticize US support for Kuwait?

I think you're lying but even in telling that lie you're actually criticising the US.

The Obama administration didn't criticize the Saudi introduction of tanks to put down protests in Bahrain that really were not armed, and had not tried or succeeded in forcibly expelling government forces from any of its territory.

You haven't criticized it either. Feel free to now.

Do you believe Saudi Arabia should not have introduced tanks to the actually peaceful protests on Bahrain?

Should both the Saudi and Bahraini governments immediately leave power?

Do Barack Obama and the US government agree with you?

What is your explanation for why the US has not called for either government to step down?

Lidia said...

Arnold, do NOT hold your breath :(

DM sure will find another twist of his "logic" or, like Humpty-Dumpty will claim that any word means what DM wants :)

By the way, Saudis are also committing crimes in their own state and in Yemen - murdering protesters and bombing rebels..

svenbali said...

No its not relevant. I wonder who they polled : )

http://www.chron.com/news/article/A-year-after-uprising-militias-hold-sway-in-Libya-3338193.php

Dermot Moloney said...

 "like Humpty-Dumpty will claim that any word means what DM wants :)"
I dont get the humpty dumpty reference, what does that character have to do with word play.

Also i havent misused nay words or attempted to claim that they mean something that they do not. You were the one who had difficulty writing the name sadat while arnold couldnt even understand a simple newspaper piece ( counting to three is also a complex task for him, he thinks he gets there before he does :D)

"By the way, Saudis are also committing crimes in their own state and in Yemen - murdering protesters and bombing rebels.."

Saudi arabias actions are wrong but they pale in comparison to syrias abuses, the same nation which you effectively defended, so spare us your crocodile tears, the protesters in saudi arabia, syria and those who protested in libya deserve better than such things from the likes of you. 

Lidia said...

They just polled happy Libyans, just as they polled happy Iraqis in a year after "liberation" :(

Or maybe 7% pessimistic Libyans were polled while sitting in cages where optimistic Libyans put them.

Dermot Moloney said...

The poll is actually highly relevant for it provided us with information of what the libyan people believe.

Arnold Evans said...

Many questions, posed as questions, were not answered. Some new ones have been raised. Let's try this again.

Yes or no, is the United States wrong for supporting dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, UAE and others? Yes or no?

Yes or no, should the United States stop supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia after Saudi Arabia used US weapons against Bahraini peaceful protesters? Yes or no?

Yes or no, should the Saudi and Bahrain governments leave power immediately? Yes or no?

Yes or no, is the US wrong for not calling for the Saudi and Bahrain governments to leave power immedately? Yes or no?

You can offer qualifcations after you answer, but please answer.

If kuwait started to use massive violence against civilians for protesting and some of those being oppressed then decided to take up arms against a government that was non-elected and committing war crimes i would indeed be sympathetic.

If iraq was sending a small amount of weaponry to these forces it again wouldnt really be an issue, such a thing would not really affect the situation and if anything might save lives by hindering forces committing mass war crimes.


You make a couple of assertions regarding Syria that I have not seen evidence to support. I'll stand corrected if you can provide evidence, but I doubt you can.

1) There was massiveviolence against civilians before there were armed attempts to establish zones from which Syrian security forces had been expelled.

I doubt you can present evidence to support this.

2) Syria's armed opposition only receives a small amount of support, including arms and funds that can be used to procure arms, from US allies and countries I describe as US colonies.

I think you may be the only person in the world trying to assert this, but either way I'd be shocked if you could support it with any form of evidence.

Arnold Evans said...

Hilarious!

That's two separate sentences you idiot.

Here's an illustration:

Source: Dermot is an idiot, I think. Dermot's level of intelligence is unlikely to ever change.

A: The openly claims Dermot is not intelligent because he said "Dermot is an idiot, I think."

D: The source is clearly not giving an opinion on Dermot's intelligence, he's only saying that it won't change.

A: "Dermot is an idiot, I think" has nothing to do with what might change in the future.

D: In another sentence the source says Dermot's intelligence is not going to change.

A: OK, but the sentence I quoted means what it says. The other sentence is a separate, non-contradictory idea.

English is seeming difficult for you Dermot. You're shaky on yes or no questions, don't really understand the word "if", and different sentences expressing different ideas seems also hard for you to wrap your head around.

Dermot Moloney said...

"That's two separate sentences you idiot."
Did i claim otherwise you fool?

No i did not.

I merely showed two quoted pieces from carter to show what exactly he was claiming and what his point of view was.

"Dermot is an idiot"

At least i dont get confused with low numbers ;)

"English is seeming difficult for you Dermot."

From the available evidence it is actually quite tricky for you, the piece with carter shows this quite nicely.

You got so flustered with the issue you even forgot how to count :D

"The source is clearly not giving an opinion on Dermot's intelligence, he's only saying that it won't change"

Arnold if thats what you think my view is then you clearly dont have a clue.

I have been quite clear that carter was giving an opinion.

His view was that due to the fact that he doubted that the military was likely to hand over full control to the civilian government the idea of full civilian control was excessive.

Next time when you get upset about being wrong about this just relax and count to thr.....oops, nevermind :/

Arnold Evans said...

Two separate ideas, idiot.

1) Military policy will not be under civilian control.
2) Carter approves of that.

Here is another quote from the same article.

Still, Mr. Carter said he was optimistic that the outcome of negotiations would nonetheless constitute a major step toward civilian democracy. “I think it is probably going to be inevitable, and I don’t think it is going to be detrimental for the military to retain some special status,” he said.

My original statement, Carter openly said he supports military policy being outside of civilian control is true.

Your statement, that he did not say that is false in a stupid way. No ten year old who can read English could honestly make that mistake.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/world/middleeast/jimmy-carter-expects-egypt-military-to-keep-some-powers.html?_r=4

I have to remind myself that you're trying your hardest. Thanks for your contributions. I do wish you were smarter.

Dermot Moloney said...

"Two separate ideas, idiot."
Arnold i think its pretty apparent who is the more foolish of the two here, it is you.

Recall what you said about assad, it is just one example of you living in your little fantasy world and believing what you want and not what is there.

The ideas are not separate.

Carter thought it was excessive and then explained why, the reason was that he doubted that the military were going to hand power to full civilian control.

Carter is hopeful for a civilian democracy.

"No ten year old who can read English could honestly make that mistake."

Most ten year olds can tell the difference between two and three :D

"Thanks for your contributions. I do wish you were smarter."

Again you are projecting your faults onto me, you are the foolish individual who claimed he had not seen any evidence to suggest that assad was treating the protesters poorly, you could not count to basic low numbers and when you had your thesis destroyed you could not even properly defend it.

Lets also recall your implication that gaddafi had great support in the major large cities of libya ( that will come as a surprise to the people of benghazi and the citizens of mistrata which faced indiscriminate fire from gaddafis forces)

Anyway imagine it being done slightly differently with me and syria "“ ‘Assad stepping down from power’ is a little excessive, I think,” 

“I don’t think the Assad is going to turn over full responsibility to the civilian government."

By saying such a thing i am not saying if everything was up to me and i completely had my way assad should remain, i am merely saying that looking at the available evidence that it is my opinion that assad stepping down at the moment is unlikely to occur.

 

Arnold Evans said...

I'll wait and see if you find one person who agrees with you. Ever.

Stupid and dishonest.

Arnold Evans said...

Here's an idea I like.  Until we get a yes or no answer to these three questions, your posting privileges here will be suspended.

You can add any qualifications you want, and any answer you give, to the two yes or no question, as long as they start with "yes" or "no", will be fine, but you have to answer these questions and your answers to the yes or no questions must begin with one of those two words.

Yes or no, does the US support dictatorships in any of: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, and Kuwait? Yes or no?

If the US does support any of those dictatorships, which ones?

Yes or no, of the dictatorships listed above, if any, that the US supports, is the US wrong for this policy? Yes or no?

You have every right to choose not to answer any or all of these three questions.  But unless and until you do your comments here will be deleted when I notice them.

Lidia said...

Arnold, one more time -DM is torturing English not because he likes to do it. But he has no much choice - how else could DM defend USA imperialism record of staunch support for the most undemocratic regimes? Before 1991 they at least had a pretext - the Cold war against ungodly communists :) Now they do not have even this fig leaf. So, the position in which DM put himself is not to envy :) 

I still cannot get, though, why DM is not happy with USA crimes in Iraq. It makes him even more vulnerable to my teasing, and logically is not needed at all. The defender of USA pro-Zionist crimes in the ME could easily incorporate Iraq "liberation" into his narrative, not making it less truthful - because the truthfulness of it could not be less anyway, less then zero is not possible here.

Dermot Moloney said...

Hey arnold, why didnt you respond to this question, isnt it hypocritical to accuse me of not answering your questions ( when i did) while doing the exact same yourself?

Arnold Evans said...

Also do you believe most arabs have a positive view of iran and its policies?

I've never said that.  I've never made an argument that depends on that.

Most Arabs, if they controlled the policies of their governments would be more hostile against Israel than the US colonies are.  In that way, their policies would be more similar to Iran's, which after the Shah, Iran's colonial stooge dictatorship, became itself more hostile against Israel and more reflective of the values, perceptions and sensibilities of its people.

Dermot Moloney said...

"Stupid and dishonest."
Big words from someone who cant count.

Also big words from someone who doesnt even understand my position as shown above.  

"Excessive does not mean unlikely. "

I didnt say it did. Carter felt that the idea of full civilian control was excessive due to the unlikely hood of the military completely stepping aside which he doubted would occur.

Carter did show that he thought civilian control was unlikely when he stated that he was doubtful about the military stepping aside.

"Excessive. How do I know? Because that's what he said."

And why is it excessive, again it is excessive for he was thought it was doubtful that the military would behave in such a way. Carter simply felt that it was more than we could expect.

Carter did feel that a clear message had to be sent off that there would complete civilian control over all aspects of government affairs and the military will play its role under the direction of an elected president and elected parliament.

"He also said separately "I don’t think it is going to be detrimental for the military to retain some special status."

He also said that  "they should be terminated at the end of a certain period" and that a new constitution in two or three months should impose limitations.

" But you know this. You're a liar and stupid."

I know that I am right in this argument, and that you are wrong.

Dermot Moloney said...

"Here's an idea I like.  Until we get a yes or no answer to these three questions, your posting privileges here will be suspended. "


?

Bit childish, whats next, if i dont answer with a certain number of words i will be suspended, if my final word ends with a vowel my post will be removed?

Yes and no answers are weak for they do work for certain questions for context needs to be taken into account.

Ill answer yes or no if it can accurately describe my position, otherwise what is the point?

"Yes or no, does the US support dictatorships in any of: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, and Kuwait? Yes or no?"

This sort of works, and if by support you mean they have relations with these nations ( economic and trading for example) the answer is yes.

"Yes or no, of the dictatorships listed above, if any, that the US supports, is the US wrong for this policy? Yes or no?"

Again if by support you mean, have relations with, the answer is no for jordan, uae and kuwait, as i said relations even with countries like cuba and iran should be had, however if they start to commit major abuses relations should be altered.

For egypt and sa yes it would be wrong not to impose restrictions on them if reports of them using resources on civilians come up.

And if any government behaved like syria it would be wrong not to cease all aid to them.

Arnold i posed a number of questions to you but you seemed to have ignored them, you may respond yes or no to them if you wish, if you feel a yes or no answer is not sufficient please elaborate your position.

Do you believe that russia should continue to send military aid to syria, do you believe that lidia is wrong not to condemn russia giving mass aid and support to syria?

Dermot Moloney said...

"DM is torturing English"
Everyone makes typos and makes mistakes with their grammar, but you lidia have been doing it more than most so you are not really in a position to accuse others of torturing the English language.

" the Cold war against ungodly communists :) "

Im actually "ungodly" myself, out of curiosity do you think it is wrong for russia to be supporting syria, do you think it was wrong when the soviet union supported undemocratic regimes?

"I still cannot get, though, why DM is not happy with USA crimes in Iraq."

Lidia, how could you not get it?

If the most recent evidence shows that the people in a nation feel that their lives or better now than they were before an intervention or that they themselves feel that the intervention was right then i feel that it is right.

It is very sound logic.

Ill try to explain it again.

When it comes to the wars in iraq, libya and afghanistan one has to see whether they made things better or worse.

In order to decide whether they were right or wrong.

How do we do this?

We look at the most recent available evidence to see what the people of these countries think now.

Do they think their lives are better?

In iraq the most recent available evidence shows that most do not think things are better now after the intervention.

This was found in a 2011 poll from zogby.

Therefore the iraq war is wrong on humanitarian grounds and therefore it is wrong from my perspective.

In libya and afghanistan the most recent evidence shows that most people feel things are better now than they were before.

Because of this i see them as being right.

This is all pretty basic stuff.

In fact another poll has come out which again shows most libyans feel things are better now than they were in the three major cities.

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Documents/ORB%20-%20Libya%20Poll%20Results.pdf 

Dermot Moloney said...

I never claimed you said it, i just asked you if you believed it.

"Most Arabs, if they controlled the policies of their governments would be more hostile against Israel than the US colonies are."

Actually the aim of most arab nations is to make peace with israel if things go back to the 67 borders, the majority of arabs support this view even though they accept that it will not be easy.

Also even after the removal of mubarack most of the polling data shows that egyptians wish to keep the peace accord with israel.

You also didnt answer my question ( ducking and diving again)

Do you believe most arabs have a positive view of iran and its policies? 

Yes or no ( if you wish)

Dermot Moloney said...

How mature

Dermot Moloney said...

Nice edit, considering you dodged the question originally, also far from being stupid or dishonest my response was accurate and grounded in reality.

Polling data does show that most arabs are willing to make peace with israel in return for the 67 borders, even they they believe getting to such an achievement would not be easy.

This was found in a poll which you happily linked to.

Most egyptians according to the majority of the polling data also favour keeping the peace deal.

"Yes. Most Arabs have a positive view of Iran and its policies "

Wrong again arnold, one of the most recent polls found that most arabs have a unfavorable view of iran  and see its role as negative.

http://aai.3cdn.net/fd7ac73539e31a321a_r9m6iy9y0.pdf 

Dermot Moloney said...

Ha! My response got you so you needed to edit it.

Here it is again, by removing it you are showing that you know you are wrong and you dont want people to see it."Stupid and dishonest."Big words from someone who cant count.Also big words from someone who doesnt even understand my position as shown above.  "Excessive does not mean unlikely. "I didnt say it did. Carter felt that the idea of full civilian control was excessive due to the unlikely hood of the military completely stepping aside which he doubted would occur.Carter did show that he thought civilian control was unlikely when he stated that he was doubtful about the military stepping aside."Excessive. How do I know? Because that's what he said."And why is it excessive, again it is excessive for he was thought it was doubtful that the military would behave in such a way. Carter simply felt that it was more than we could expect.Carter did feel that a clear message had to be sent off that there would complete civilian control over all aspects of government affairs and the military will play its role under the direction of an elected president and elected parliament."He also said separately "I don’t think it is going to be detrimental for the military to retain some special status."He also said that  "they should be terminated at the end of a certain period" and that a new constitution in two or three months should impose limitations.[How dishonest of you to leave this out]" But you know this. You're a liar and stupid."Again this part needs to be repeated " Carter did feel that a clear message had to be sent off that there would complete civilian control over all aspects of government affairs and the military will play its role under the direction of an elected president and elected parliament."

Dermot Moloney said...

Here is my answer again

"Here's an idea I like.  Until we get a yes or no answer to these three questions, your posting privileges here will be suspended. "?Bit childish, whats next, if i dont answer with a certain number of words i will be suspended, if my final word ends with a vowel my post will be removed?Yes and no answers are weak for they do work for certain questions for context needs to be taken into account.Ill answer yes or no if it can accurately describe my position, otherwise what is the point?"Yes or no, does the US support dictatorships in any of: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, and Kuwait? Yes or no?"This sort of works, and if by support you mean they have relations with these nations ( economic and trading for example) the answer is yes."Yes or no, of the dictatorships listed above, if any, that the US supports, is the US wrong for this policy? Yes or no?"Again if by support you mean, have relations with, the answer is no for jordan, uae and kuwait, as i said relations even with countries like cuba and iran should be had, however if they start to commit major abuses relations should be altered.For egypt and sa yes it would be wrong not to impose restrictions on them if reports of them using resources on civilians come up.And if any government behaved like syria it would be wrong not to cease all aid to them.Arnold i posed a number of questions to you but you seemed to have ignored them, you may respond yes or no to them if you wish, if you feel a yes or no answer is not sufficient please elaborate your position.Do you believe that russia should continue to send military aid to syria, do you believe that lidia is wrong not to condemn russia giving mass aid and support to syria?

"No redefining regular English words to avoid the question."

[To support in a political context means: To aid the cause, policy, or interests of]

Im aware of this and i took it into account, by having relations, particularly economic ones, one is indeed aiding in the interests of these governments for such things affect their nation.

So i answered your question, please answer mine. 

Dermot Moloney said...

Arnold you think that looking at the available evidence to decide whether or not an intervention is dishonest and stupid?

Thats a very weak view.

Also what is wrong with me asking lidia some fair questions?

Dermot Moloney said...

(Sigh)

Here it is once more

I also want you to pay special attention to a bit near the end."Stupid and dishonest."Big words from someone who cant count.Also big words from someone who doesnt even understand my position as shown above.  "Excessive does not mean unlikely. "I didnt say it did. Carter felt that the idea of full civilian control was excessive due to the unlikely hood of the military completely stepping aside which he doubted would occur.Carter did show that he thought civilian control was unlikely when he stated that he was doubtful about the military stepping aside."Excessive. How do I know? Because that's what he said."And why is it excessive, again it is excessive for he was thought it was doubtful that the military would behave in such a way. Carter simply felt that it was more than we could expect.[Here it is]Carter did feel that a clear message had to be sent off that there would complete civilian control over all aspects of government affairs and the military will play its role under the direction of an elected president and elected parliament.[This is a statement from carter, read it again][Full civilian control]"He also said separately "I don’t think it is going to be detrimental for the military to retain some special status."He also said that  "they should be terminated at the end of a certain period" and that a new constitution in two or three months should impose limitations.[How very dishonest of you to leave this out]" But you know this. You're a liar and stupid."Again this part needs to be repeated " Carter did feel that a clear message had to be sent off that there would complete civilian control over all aspects of government affairs and the military will play its role under the direction of an elected president and elected parliament."

Done and done.

Dermot Moloney said...

Arnold you think that looking at the available evidence to decide whether or not an intervention is dishonest and stupid?

Thats a very weak view.

Also what is wrong with me asking lidia some fair questions?

Dermot Moloney said...

"In a political context between states, to support is more than to have relations with."?Arnold in order to support a nation various forms of relations need to take place or just one, these include diplomatic relations, military relations and trade and economic relations, also aid relations."It is starting to look like your career as a commenter here is drawing to a close."Shame if it is, i guess i could post my views to you at race for iran."You could have actually answered the questions if you had chosen."I did, the answers were yes, then yes for some then no for others.Presented quite clearly.Also dont you think it is hypocritical to punish someone for not answering questions (even when they did) when you dont answer questions put to you? 

Dermot Moloney said...

But i did, even if i didnt ( again i stress that i did) your actions are very irrational. If you feel i didnt answer the questions properly you could just say that and leave the posts there for those reading to decide.

Its also a bit much to say i cant contribute by not answering those questions to your liking when you yourself failed to answer a number of questions i put to you.

Dermot Moloney said...

"But having relations is not necessarily support."
Having economic diplomatic and military relations is support.

"Saying the US has relations with them is not answering the questions"

I never claimed that it did, i did however answer the question by saying whether or not i agreed with the statement, the statement being is the us right to support these certain nations, considering support comes in various forms, such as economic for example, i stated that it was right to have such a relationship with them them in this regards, however if they ever use the support that they are giving they should lessen this support and if they engage in syria style actions they should cut off the various forms of support.

This is your question answered quite clearly, if you dont like it just say so and move on.

Also i keep asking this but why in turn have you not answered my questions?

Dermot Moloney said...

"(Sigh)

Here it is once more

I also want you to pay special attention to a bit near the end.

"Stupid and dishonest."

Big words from someone who cant count.

Also big words from someone who doesnt even understand my position as shown above.  

"Excessive does not mean unlikely. "

I didnt say it did. Carter felt that the idea of full civilian control was excessive due to the unlikely hood of the military completely stepping aside which he doubted would occur.

Carter did show that he thought civilian control was unlikely when he stated that he was doubtful about the military stepping aside.

"Excessive. How do I know? Because that's what he said."

And why is it excessive, again it is excessive for he was thought it was doubtful that the military would behave in such a way. Carter simply felt that it was more than we could expect.

[Here it is]

Carter did feel that a clear message had to be sent off that there would complete civilian control over all aspects of government affairs and the military will play its role under the direction of an elected president and elected parliament.

[This is a statement from carter, read it again]

[Full civilian control]

"He also said separately "I don’t think it is going to be detrimental for the military to retain some special status."

He also said that  "they should be terminated at the end of a certain period" and that a new constitution in two or three months should impose limitations.

[How very dishonest of you to leave this out]

" But you know this. You're a liar and stupid."

Again this part needs to be repeated 

" Carter did feel that a clear message had to be sent off that there would complete civilian control over all aspects of government affairs and the military will play its role under the direction of an elected president and elected parliament."

Even if your unhappy with the other area of debate why are you removing comments related to other topics, such as this and my response to lidia, im genuinely interested in what you have against my comment towards lidia.

Lidia said...

It seems DM did not get why was I mentioning Humpty-Dumpty :)

I was NOT brought up in English-speaking world, as DM is aware. But it seems even in such case I know a bit more than he, whose mother tongue is English, about the classics of English literature - i.e. Alice by L. Caroll 

So, for the benefit of DM - an explanation 

Humpty appears in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass (1872), where he discusses semantics and pragmatics with Alice.
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”[14]
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_DumptyAs another classic of English lit - Oscar Wilde put it - life is imitating the art - and DM is sure an imitation of the Humpty-Dumpty, only DM is NOT the master here :)

Lolmate said...

Arnold,

I hope you realize that you are debating an IDF internet commando:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142374

Lidia said...

It is called IOF (NOT defense, but occupation),

On the other hand, Obama is sure not from IOF, and still :(

Dermot Moloney said...

If you can provide evidence that i am one of these individuals id like to see it.

Dermot Moloney said...

Arnold you asked was it right for the us to support them, i said yes for some of them, and no for others, i then explained how they support them, was there something im missing, what other ways can one support a nation that i left out?

Arnold Evans said...

Three questions.  Answer them directly, in order, without deliberately misdefining "support".

Or don't.

But if you don't your posts here will be deleted.

Dermot Moloney said...

"using normal definitions of all of the words"
My definition of support was correct, support is aiding a nation, even the def you gave supports this, i pointed out the various ways these nations were aided and said which countries were acceptable to aid and which were not ( your yes and no was given)

I then provided the context in which this yes should change to a no.

You seem to have dug yourself into a hole by failing to realise this, i could give y and n single answers if you want but it would just be me repeating points i already made which you failed to realise.

Arnold Evans said...

Answer the (not here, upthread where there's more room) questions or don't.

Later today, if you haven't I'm deleting this also.

Dermot Moloney said...

"Answer the questions "
???

Again, are you seriously telling me that you do not know the answers to these questions after i have given them already a number of times.

Out of curiosity please attempt to guess.

Dermot Moloney said...

Ugh!

Its a bit much repeating myself again and again.

Ok, your definition ( and mine ) of support consists of providing aid.

The us gives aid in various forms to a number of countries that you listed, the answer is therefore yes.

Is the us right to provide aid these nations, as i said before yes for some, no for others.

This has already been stated arnold, i feel that you know this your self but you adopted a flawed position and had no choice but to run with it.

Dermot Moloney said...

"
and DM is sure an imitation of the Humpty-Dumpty"

The problem with this is that lidia is that you are the one who says one thing while actually meaning something else.

For example you wrote saddam when you meant sadat.

The misreading on your part of the nyt piece is another example.

Sineva said...

Well Arnold after watching the progress of this thread the one thing
that always comes back to me after reading DM`s last series of posts is a
line from the 2nd series of Blackadder where Lord Melchett says to
Edmond:"Blackadder you twist and turn like a twisty turny thing",I just thought I`d add that

Dermot Moloney said...

I cant help but notice that yesterday i answered your questions with yes or no answers, whilst making sure i mentioned that by support i meant giving aid, to which even according to you is the definition of giving support.

Sadly it looks like even this was removed:/

Dermot Moloney said...

The problem here is that i am not the one twisting and turning.

Dermot Moloney said...

Lidia we all make typos and mistakes but you seem to make them more than most so you are not really in a position to  accuse others of torturing the english language.

Also do you think it was right for russia or the soviet union to support dictatorships, by sending arms to them for example

"I still cannot get, though, why DM is not happy with USA crimes in Iraq."

Lidia if this is true it means that you cannot understand the even the most basic things.

Ill try to explain it once more, i support something if the people affected feels it has made their lives better, if it has not im against it.

Is that simple enough for you.

We find out if something has made their lives better by looking at the most recent evidence.

In iraq the most recent evidence shows that most iraqis thinks life is worse, in libya and Afghanistan the most recent evidence shows that people prefer their lives now than they did before the intervention.

Therefore i think iraq was a mistake while the other two interventions was right.

"It makes him even more vulnerable to my teasing"

What teasing exactly?

"The defender of USA pro-Zionist crimes in the ME could easily incorporate Iraq "liberation" into his narrative, not making it less truthful - because the truthfulness of it could not be less anyway, less then zero is not possible here."

Actually the available evidence argues against such claims.

George Carty said...

"IOF" is a propaganda term, like "Islamofascist" or "Munafiqeen-e Khalq".

Lidia said...

GC, "IOF" is TRUTH. Israel army is NOT defencive but occupying. It is a fact. On the other hand, Islam (even in its most reactionary from) has NOTHING to do with fascism. Fascism is a particular kind of "central" capitalist imperialism and colonialism. It had nothing to do with Islam.

"Munafiqeen-e Khalq" could be used in quotation marks, but "IDF" is purely propaganda.

Of course, USA DOD is not so truthful name as well, but at least when one look into USA army (or UK, France and so all) war crimes, they are NOT labeled as  crimes of "defense force".

Dermot Moloney said...

Lidia we all make typos and mistakes but you seem
to make them more than most so you are not really in a position to  accuse others of torturing the english
language.


 


Also do you think it was right for russia or the
soviet union to support dictatorships, by sending arms to them for example


 


"I still cannot get, though, why DM is not
happy with USA crimes in Iraq."


 


Lidia if this is true it means that you cannot
understand the even the most basic things.


 


Ill try to explain it once more, i support
something if the people affected feels it has made their lives better, if it
has not im against it.


 


Is that simple enough for you.


 


We find out if something has made their lives
better by looking at the most recent evidence.


 


In iraq the most recent evidence shows that most
iraqis thinks life is worse, in libya and Afghanistan the most recent evidence
shows that people prefer their lives now than they did before the intervention.


 


Therefore i think iraq was a mistake while the
other two interventions was right.


 


"It makes him even more vulnerable to my
teasing"


 


What teasing exactly?


 


"The defender of USA pro-Zionist crimes in
the ME could easily incorporate Iraq "liberation" into his narrative,
not making it less truthful - because the truthfulness of it could not be less
anyway, less then zero is not possible here."


 


Actually the available evidence argues against
such claims.

Dermot Moloney said...

Nice edit, considering you dodged the question
originally, also far from being stupid or dishonest my response was accurate
and grounded in reality.


 


Polling data does show that most arabs are
willing to make peace with israel in return for the 67 borders, even they they
believe getting to such an achievement would not be easy.


 


This was found in a poll which you happily linked
to.


 


Most egyptians according to the majority of the
polling data also favour keeping the peace deal.


 


"Yes. Most Arabs have a positive view of
Iran and its policies "


 


Wrong again arnold, one of the most recent polls
found that most arabs have a unfavorable view of iran  and see its role as negative.


 


http://aai.3cdn.net/fd7ac73539e31a321a_r9m6iy9y0.pdf

Dermot Moloney said...

It seems that you cant even follow your own rules.

I answered your questions using the def you provided and stated yes or no to the series of questions.

Its clear that you are trying to censor me for you have difficulty countering my posts.

Dont worry, ill just save my posts and post them again and again.

I would usually just say have it your way and move on but considering how childish and rude you have been when it was you who was in the wrong ( and it was ) im not declined to do so.

George Carty said...

Obama the butcher of Iraq?  I thought that would have been Saddam and Bush?

Lidia said...

Gc, do not worry, Obama did his share and more, and then told that it was right thing to do. So, he IS a butcher of Iraq, as well as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya and now Syria (not mentioning Africa and so on). The Noble Peace Prize, even though it usually got to very dubious chars, sure Obama was the most deserving :(

George Carty said...

My point is that it doesn't call itself the "IOF", just as there are no self-described "Islamofascists".

Lidia said...

So what? It is a propaganda name by Zionist occupation army, why should I agree with their propaganda?

"Islamofascists" is a derogatory word and a lie used by ORTHERS. "IDF" is a "nice" name used by the occupation army to disguise their true nature.

Dermot Moloney said...

Lidia we all make typos and mistakes but you seem
to make them more than most so you are not really in a position to  accuse others of torturing the english
language.


 


Also do you think it was right for russia or the
soviet union to support dictatorships, by sending arms to them for example


 


"I still cannot get, though, why DM is not
happy with USA crimes in Iraq."


 


Lidia if this is true it means that you cannot
understand the even the most basic things.


 


Ill try to explain it once more, i support
something if the people affected feels it has made their lives better, if it
has not im against it.


 


Is that simple enough for you.


 


We find out if something has made their lives
better by looking at the most recent evidence.


 


In iraq the most recent evidence shows that most
iraqis thinks life is worse, in libya and Afghanistan the most recent evidence
shows that people prefer their lives now than they did before the intervention.


 


Therefore i think iraq was a mistake while the
other two interventions was right.


 


"It makes him even more vulnerable to my
teasing"


 


What teasing exactly?


 


"The defender of USA pro-Zionist crimes in
the ME could easily incorporate Iraq "liberation" into his narrative,
not making it less truthful - because the truthfulness of it could not be less
anyway, less then zero is not possible here."


 


Actually the available evidence argues against
such claims.

Dermot Moloney said...

The reference doesnt actually apply to me for i am not the one misusing the english language.

In a way arnold was not either, he simply didnt understand the piece in question.

Although he did back track so i suspect he now realises that he was in the wrong.

Dermot Moloney said...

Nice edit, considering you dodged the question
originally, also far from being stupid or dishonest my response was accurate
and grounded in reality.


 


Polling data does show that most arabs are
willing to make peace with israel in return for the 67 borders, even they they
believe getting to such an achievement would not be easy.


 


This was found in a poll which you happily linked
to.


 


Most egyptians according to the majority of the
polling data also favour keeping the peace deal.


 


"Yes. Most Arabs have a positive view of
Iran and its policies "


 


Wrong again arnold, one of the most recent polls
found that most arabs have a unfavorable view of iran  and see its role as negative.


 


http://aai.3cdn.net/fd7ac73539e31a321a_r9m6iy9y0.pdf

Maloski said...

"Yes. Most Arabs have a positive view of Iran and its policies."
Ugh, im surprised who haven't removed this foolish claim. 

obviously you and i have had a bit of back and forth with one another but i believe that this piece more than any other highlights just how right i was and how wrong you were.

You made a claim, i provided evidence to show it was wrong, you could have had some integrity and sowed it.

Instead you tried to hide it.

Just to let you know how bad this looks, imagine if juan cole made a claim, and you pointed out some evidence to show that it was wrong. Imagine juan cole being angry that he was shown to be wrong and imagine that he removed the evidence and replaced it with derogatory statements, this is basically what happened here.

You could show yourself to be a better person by admitting that you were mistaken and present the evidence which shows this.

Such an action would actually quite impress me and show yourself to be a rational open minded individual.

Balls in your court arnold.