Like it or not, the US IS the big dog.

That doesnt mean it has to jump into every battle and be the face of the battle w/o wider support or understanding the potential adverse consequences of its actions.

Iraq had resources we wanted, but you didnt see GHW Bush act w/o a UN mandate after Iraq invaded Kuwait or exceed the mandate by invading Iraq after driving Iraq out of Kuwait. You didnt see GHW Bush or Clinton exceed the UN mandate and act independently with excessive force when Saddam was killing Kurds in the North.

I like the fact that the US did not feel a need to be the "big dog" in Libya after the initial action.

It is now the brits and the french conducting apache helicopter attacks against Ghaddafi, not the US, and Qatar and other Muslim nations having a presence as well. With the US role now pretty much limited to intel, logistical support, search and rescue assistance and perhaps an unmanned drone if necessary.

Don't put words in my mouth. That is not at all what I said nor intended.

I didnt put words in your mouth any more than your suggestion that I shared your opinion that the US would have acted in Syria if there were important resources at play....so lighten up. :)

You did ignore my central point. That Iran and Hezbollah could create much more havoc in the region if we were to respond in Syria militarily. Agree or disagree?

In addition to what they have that we want, its also the assholes like Iran and Hezbollah... point not ignored. It didn't need a reply. Did you want an "attaboy" for stating the obvious?

I'm still not clear where you stand. Sure, Iran and Hezbollah are assholes.

But, the question is...should the US act, with or w/o a UN mandate, recognizing that Iran and Hezbollah could make matters worse in the region?

BTW, there was "nothing it" in for the US when they were part of the NATO/UN response in Bosnia.

There was "something it" in for GHW Bush to invade Iraq after tossing them out of Kuwait, but he did not do so, because he had no mandate and understood that their could be bad unintended consquences.

added:

It comes back to this:
IMO, it comes down to more than just having something that we want (money, oil, power, control), including having a legitimate mandate and a broad coalition of support as well as considering other strategic factors (like if/how other powers in the region might react).

It comes back to: Why are Libyan lives worth more than Syrian lives?

If that is what you believe, fine.

I dont share that opinion.

I think foreign policy decisions are not that simple. Is it a good thing that it involves more than the value of one life over another? Probably not, but it is reality.

It is a question that remains unanswered.

I agree.

You didnt answer any of my questions and simply dodged every issue I raised and stuck to your simplistic assertion. :D

I raised a question, you kept spinning it into something else. I kept TRYING to stay with my original question and here we are ...

Perhaps not a simplistic assertion, but it is a simple question that you refuse answer because it apparently doesn't fit into your political ideology.

[Paraphrase]I think foreign policy decisions involve more than the value of one life over another? [/Paraphrase]

That's as close as you managed to come. Its virtually what I have been saying all along, but you really just can't do it. That's fine. I don't see any point in furthering this part of the discussion. Ugly truths aren't always convenient, are they?
The next point is simply ... WHY?

I'm just glad our foreign policy is not that simple minded given that an effective, thoughtfuil policy involves more than "whats in it for us" and more than "why help country a vs country b."

"simple minded" - thank you.

:corn:

Still trying to get a straight answer on that one as well.