Partisan Hacks don't support Syria

[pockybot]

People have this idea that "anti war" people like myself don't care if tyrant thugs oppress and destroy their own people. Such is simply not the case. I just

1) Don't like American troops sent to harms way under ambiguous goals, hidden agendas and ESPECIALLY with deceitful lie based pretexts

2) Don't like to see the US and NATO kill and injure a lot of people to "save" them

3) Have to point out the outrageous duplicity. Ghadafy was praised and in bed with the West til the turn of 2011, and then oh NOW all the sudden he's a terrorist(even tho it was the British government that lobbied for the Libyan intelligence mastermind of Lockerbie to be released so they could have big fat oil contracts)

I am very happy if Libya is truly free and self governed, doesnt have a creeping jihadist element AND can make the country better with profiting off it's own oil(instead of Western, Chinese and Arab corporations taking it all)

That's all Im saying. Im not a fan of the governments of Syria and Iran, and would love to see a revolution by the people to overthrow both regimes.

[azulmagia]

pockybot

I am very happy if Libya is truly free and self governed, doesnt have a creeping jihadist element AND can make the country better with profiting off it's own oil(instead of Western, Chinese and Arab corporations taking it all)

Prepare to get unhappy.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

azulmagia

pockybot

I am very happy if Libya is truly free and self governed, doesnt have a creeping jihadist element AND can make the country better with profiting off it's own oil(instead of Western, Chinese and Arab corporations taking it all)

Prepare to get unhappy.

It's going to get significantly worse before it gets better, too.

[The Infamous Unami]

The Syria situation is more complex than Libya's for several important reasons:

1. Militarily, Syria is MUCH more powerful than Libya. This means that if NATO were to engage them, the US would need to take a more hands-on role. Syria also has the means to strike its neighbors and trigger a full regional war.

2. Obama cannot, politically, sustain either of the above scenarios.

3. Even if others WERE willing, there will be no UN mandate to act, as Russia and China are still pissed about being lied to about our intentions in Libya. Also, Syria is waaaay friendlier with Russia than Libya was.

So yeah. That's why nothing's happened.

[Wendigo]

Teh Bad Kittah

There have been several Obama die hards on the forums that were all for the Libya action; only because Obama was going for it. Never you mind that these same individuals were caught in the their own web that they wove. They attacked Bush for Iraq's invasion as being purely for oil.

Not ******** comparable. Bush justified his invasion, quite vividly, by arguing that we were invading to rescue corpses - repeatedly citing "mass graves" dating back to the Shi'ite rebellion of 1991 and the attack on Halabjah of 1988. He argued that the people of Iraq would be attacked this way again at some indefinite future date, with weapons it turns out Hussein no longer had.

The people of Libya were, at that very moment, being bombed from the air, much as Hussein had done in 1991 when he was gunning down his people in the street with helicopters we had sold to him. It is not hypocritical to have opposed Iraq but not Libya - it is hypocritical to have supported Iraq but not Libya, which had a greater claim to the feeble justifications Bush had claimed for his own action.

As regards Syria, I do support the Syrian peoples' desire for freedom. Freedom from a regime which supports itself with torture and terror, much as Gaddafi or Hussein did. It would be difficult to say, however, whether our military can really shoulder another such burden at the present time. Having spent ourselves so thoroughly over the last ten years on what amounts to fighting brushfires. It is unfortunate that things have come to a head just when and how they have in so many places.

It would have been preferable, I'm sure, to explore our role in world politics a little earlier, say when Syria was mainly the place we shipped POWs to be tortured.

[pockybot]

Well the Syrian thing is interesting, because it directly ties into Iran now. With Madmoud's "nuke achievement" annoucement soon, his pledge to support Palestinians militarily even more, all backed by a chorus of "Death to Israel, death to America"...you can bet Israel is feeling internal pressure to use more than MEK terrorists to deter Iran.

[Teh Bad Kittah]

Wendigo

Teh Bad Kittah

There have been several Obama die hards on the forums that were all for the Libya action; only because Obama was going for it. Never you mind that these same individuals were caught in the their own web that they wove. They attacked Bush for Iraq's invasion as being purely for oil.

Not ******** comparable. Bush justified his invasion, quite vividly, by arguing that we were invading to rescue corpses - repeatedly citing "mass graves" dating back to the Shi'ite rebellion of 1991 and the attack on Halabjah of 1988. He argued that the people of Iraq would be attacked this way again at some indefinite future date, with weapons it turns out Hussein no longer had.

The people of Libya were, at that very moment, being bombed from the air, much as Hussein had done in 1991 when he was gunning down his people in the street with helicopters we had sold to him. It is not hypocritical to have opposed Iraq but not Libya - it is hypocritical to have supported Iraq but not Libya, which had a greater claim to the feeble justifications Bush had claimed for his own action.

As regards Syria, I do support the Syrian peoples' desire for freedom. Freedom from a regime which supports itself with torture and terror, much as Gaddafi or Hussein did. It would be difficult to say, however, whether our military can really shoulder another such burden at the present time. Having spent ourselves so thoroughly over the last ten years on what amounts to fighting brushfires. It is unfortunate that things have come to a head just when and how they have in so many places.

It would have been preferable, I'm sure, to explore our role in world politics a little earlier, say when Syria was mainly the place we shipped POWs to be tortured.

Very much the same for a reason you're overlooking; Bush's claims towards Iraq has no bearing on the similarity. Leftists claim the real reason for Iraq was oil. They are claiming action in Libya was not because of oil but I see through the bullshit because the statistical data, i.e. deaths of civilians between Syria and Libya are very clear. And while these same people praised Obama for taking action in Libya, they say nothing, do nothing, and claim we shouldn't do anything when it comes to Syria. You can't tell me that isn't cute.

[Wendigo]

Given the way the rhetoric shifted toward Iran afterward, and the geographical locations of the places we happened to occupy, I think it's more likely that the administration believed it was conducting a pincer maneuver of some kind. Oil can't be discounted as a factor, though, it's played a role since Mossadeq.

[Touching Hair]

The reason Western nations are unwilling to use force in Syria is simply because Syria is extremely unstable. Using force to remove the ruling powers will undoubtedly result in a civil war that will claim many thousands of lives, destabilising the entire region.

Want someone to blame? Then blame Russia, it's their bullets that are killing the civilians. Even now, Russia is still shipping arms to Syria and providing political support.

[The Sky Does Not Bow]

Military intervention in Syria would be a whole lot more complicated than in Libya. Unlike Qaddafi, Assad has friends in Iran, Lebanon and Russia. Unlike Libya, Syria has a standing army of 220,000. Compared to Libya's six-million, Syria has a population of 23-million, split significantly between half a dozen religious and cultural sects.

So, Syria is 500% worse than Libya? Well, intervention in Syria would be about 1000% more complicated.

[pockybot]

The Sky Does Not Bow

Military intervention in Syria would be a whole lot more complicated than in Libya. Unlike Qaddafi, Assad has friends in Iran, Lebanon and Russia. Unlike Libya, Syria has a standing army of 220,000. Compared to Libya's six-million, Syria has a population of 23-million, split significantly between half a dozen religious and cultural sects.

So, Syria is 500% worse than Libya? Well, intervention in Syria would be about 1000% more complicated.

Oh exactly. Reports are in that the Syrian army is going full on crazy blitz, and the Arab league has now authorized arming of the rebels:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46378492/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/#.TzrdVfldBzo

The thinking is it has to be a proxy war. With Syria's best buddy Iran(also now supporting Syria's massacres) declaring the willingness to go all out crazy against Israeli and US interests, this wouldnt be the little controlled wars the US has gotten cozy with. This isnt the US waltzing into Iraq and Afghanistan, stamping down fleeing government soldiers and then getting bogged down in ten years of tit for tat guerrilla insurgency. This is like a regional WW3 ready to explode.

[The Sky Does Not Bow]

pockybot

The thinking is it has to be a proxy war.

Probably not.

[pockybot]

The Sky Does Not Bow

pockybot

The thinking is it has to be a proxy war.

Probably not.

"Arab nations get ready to arm Syria rebels; bloodshed worsens "
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46378492/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/#.TzrdVfldBzo

You just highlighted a few reasons why Western military intervention would be crazy

[The Sky Does Not Bow]

pockybot

The Sky Does Not Bow

pockybot

The thinking is it has to be a proxy war.

Probably not.

"Arab nations get ready to arm Syria rebels; bloodshed worsens "
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46378492/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/#.TzrdVfldBzo

You just highlighted a few reasons why Western military intervention would be crazy

A proxy war between whom?

[Wraith of Azrael]

The Sky Does Not Bow

pockybot

The Sky Does Not Bow

pockybot

The thinking is it has to be a proxy war.

Probably not.

"Arab nations get ready to arm Syria rebels; bloodshed worsens "
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46378492/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/#.TzrdVfldBzo

You just highlighted a few reasons why Western military intervention would be crazy

A proxy war between whom?

If I had to take a guess...

It would be Iran, Russia, and probably the Western Powers backing the Rebels.

I would post the 150,000 or so Iranian troop claim but judging from the sources that are spouting that...it might not be that reliable.