The discussion centers around the contrasting U.S. responses to the violent situations in Syria and Libya, questioning why military intervention occurred in Libya but not in Syria. Participants explore various factors influencing these decisions, including geopolitical considerations, military capabilities, and regional alliances.
Participants express multiple competing views regarding the reasons for U.S. intervention in Libya versus Syria. There is no consensus on whether intervention is justified or what factors are most significant in the decision-making process.
Limitations include the complexity of regional politics, the influence of international organizations like the UN, and the varying interpretations of the situations in Syria and Libya. Participants acknowledge these complexities without resolving them.
This discussion may be of interest to those studying international relations, military intervention policies, and Middle Eastern geopolitics.
In this case, I'm inclined to agree.pessimist said:Reading the poster's views i can't help but wonder, why in the world should the United States interfere whether it is a Civil War situation or not? It is an extreme act of arrogance in my opinion.
No, the UN has no such on going responsibility. Individual nations don't give up that responsibility to the UN, though they can opt to act through the UN.The United Nations has the responsibility to decide what steps should be taken
Angry Citizen said:I think it'll be Turkey that ends up taking action against Syria, should it come to that. They're seriously fed up with the situation on their border, with refugees and such. I wish Libya would become a blueprint for future UN/NATO operations, but that's being idealistic.
As for why Libya, I think it had nothing to do with oil. Libya did not sell very much oil to the US.
As for whether we 'took the lead' - we didn't. Our major contribution to the war effort was the initial day or two in which we launched somewhere in the neighborhood of 150-200 Tomahawk missiles to save Benghazi from being overrun. The French and UK led the political effort, and took over most of the bombings after we shot our missiles.
MarcoD said:Libya: No constitution, no government, no taxes!, anti-Islam, anti-Arab, pro-African, an army of 25k. Just a bunch of cities/regions lead by revolutionary councils.
Syria: A dictatorial socialist Islamic state, big government, strong Arabic ties, no hostile intentions (for the last decade) towards Israel, a 400k ground/tank army next to Turkey and Israel.
Nobody cares about the oil of Libya. EU is mostly worried about African immigration coming trough that region, maybe fishing for some development contracts, probably hoping for an exemplary mixed secular Islamic modern democratic state. And it was one of the few cases where being morally right wasn't a bad choice.
Messing with Syria is a totally different ball game. Chances are just too big you blow up the whole region.
(Addendum. I should have said: Oil is a less important factor than most assume. If it would be about oil, the EU/US might as well have backed Qaddafi, or have send in ground troops to secure the region. Oil will come in either way, whoever runs the country.)
russ_watters said:I've been thinking about starting this thread for almost a week, as the intensity of the situation in Syria has been increasing. The silence from the world community regarding Syria is deafening. Hence, the question in the title...and from a CNN headline of a similar wording: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/26/u.s..libya.syria/index.html?hpt=C1
In semi-fairness to Obama, he's not the only one ignoring Syria: the UN hasn't made a peep about the situation either.
So what's different?
1. Oil. Syria doesn't have any.
2. Despite the way it has been characterized internationally, Libya is a civil war whereas in Syria, the government is just killing civilians. From a moral standpoint that makes the situation in Syria worse, but from a practical standpoint, there isn't an opposition force for our military to support. In Libya, we say we're there to protect civilians, but we're not: we're there to support the opposition in the civil war.
3. Dissent or not, Syria is the center of the terrorist hornet's nest and the general Islamic extremist movement in the ME. So the anti-west reaction would be a lot worse if we were to intervene there.
Are these good reasons not to at least talk about it on the floor of the UN? IMO, no.
estro said:So you know the reason:
1. Oil prices.
2. Double standards of Europe.
estro said:In Libya it wasn't a struggle of civilians against armed forces but a fight between 2 armed armies. It was a civil war.
On the other hand in Siria, Asad slaughters unarmed civilians.
If anything military intervention should be done in Siria.
Europe never cared about human rights, all they want is cheap oil.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14829835
estro said:In Libya it wasn't a struggle of civilians against armed forces but a fight between 2 armed armies. It was a civil war.
On the other hand in Siria, Asad slaughters unarmed civilians.
If anything military intervention should be done in Siria.
Europe never cared about human rights, all they want is cheap oil.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14829835
MarcoD said:...
We have little right to intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign nations.
...
estro said:You got it!
This is what I wanted to hear.
estro said:I know that they run for their lives to the Israeli border, so I guess they will note care...
CNN said:Jaafari's remarks came on the same day that the Syrian Human Rights Information Link reported that more than 400 people have died since March 18 in incidents linked to the government crackdown on protesters seeking reform. ...
The United Nations has said it has information that 76 people were killed last week on Friday alone, apparently during peaceful marches, and that the death toll from that day could be much higher
Guardian said:Government forces shelled civilian districts in the central city of Hama for a second day
Bloomberg said:Syrian security forces killed at least 15 protesters before a planned visit to Damascus by the head of the 22-member state Arab League for talks on the six months of conflict in the nation.
Demonstrators were killed yesterday in the central city of Homs and the northern province of Idlib, according to Mahmoud Merhi, head of the Arab Organization for Human Rights. Security forces also carried out a “major assault” yesterday on the town of Nawa, near the southern province of Daraa where the uprising began in March, Merhi said by phone today.
estro said:I know that they run for their lives to the Israeli border, so I guess they will note care...
russ_watters said:Are these good reasons not to at least talk about it on the floor of the UN? IMO, no.
WhoWee said:How do you spell باتريشيا ومقتضب - the "Libyan Strongman"?
Qaddafi, Gadhafi. Gaddafi, Khaddify, Kadhafi - or doesn't anyone really care?
klimatos said:It all depends upon which transliteration system you use. The Arabic language contains sounds that are not represented by letters in the English language. (and vice-versa. The Semitic languages have no "j" sound, as in John, Jesus, etc.). Most media have a stylebook that they use for such transliterations. Consequently, what spelling you see depends upon what media is doing the presentation.
klimatos said:One reason might be that very few UN members could come the discussion with clean hands, and Syria would be quick to point that out. Almost all countries have histories of killing their own citizens from time to time. Some, of course, more often or more recently than others.
A second reason might be that Israel prefers the existing Syrian government to what might conceivably replace it.
A third reason is that doing anything effective (as opposed to just talking about it) would be tremendously expensive in lives and wealth. So why talk about it if you're not going to do anything about it.
By the way, the Arab (English language) Al-Jazeera has been quite vocal in condemning Syria's repression of its citizens--far more so than any Western station.
klimatos said:By the way, the Arab (English language) Al-Jazeera has been quite vocal in condemning Syria's repression of its citizens--far more so than any Western station.
MarcoD said:Since you seem to know a good deal more about these things, I am interested what you would think would be appropriate, or what will happen.
russ_watters said:In Libya, we say we're there to protect civilians, but we're not: we're there to support the opposition in the civil war.
mheslep said:Would the no action "until there's a real benefit" rule apply to the US in the presence of a 1940 Nazi Germany?
Which is tragic. I applaud the US ambassador for attending the victim's funeral ceremonies, but then he says this:A man who had encapsulated the youthful idealism of syria’s grass-roots protest movement, pioneering the tactic of handing out roses and water to the troops sent to shoot demonstrators, had died in custody. ...“We know how peaceful this guy was, and he was tortured to death, and it shows that if we continue like this, we’ll be treated like anyone who had a gun and was a terrorist,” he said. “Everyone’s really, really angry.”
Why? Why must the protest remain peaceful? So Assad can do more of the same and stay in power, so Syria drops off the front page, and the US need do nothing?“There’s a growing frustration in the streets that a lot of people are being killed and wounded and that they should take up arms,” said the diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive subjects. “This young man understood the importance of the protest movement staying peaceful, even as he was confronting a lot of violence.”
mheslep said:http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/syrian-activist-ghiyath-matars-death-spurs-grief-debate/2011/09/14/gIQArgq8SK_story_1.html"
Which is tragic. I applaud the US ambassador for attending the victim's funeral ceremonies, but then he says this:
Why? Why must the protest remain peaceful? So Assad can do more of the same and stay in power, so Syria drops off the front page, and the US need do nothing?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/277356/limits-gandhi-ism-mark-krikorian"