Latest Arab Spring thread

[classicman]

This displays the fallacy of the UN. Comes back to "Why did we help in Libya and not there? Money, Oil, power, control. The poor people being slaughtered in Syria aren't getting helped because they have nothing we, the countries that could help, want.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by classicman

This displays the fallacy of the UN. Comes back to "Why did we help in Libya and not there? Money, Oil, power, control. The poor people being slaughtered in Syria aren't getting helped because they have nothing we, the countries that could help, want.

I think that is a little simplistic and completely ignores the other external factors in the region.

Particularly, Iran which has an interest in keeping Assad in power. Or potentially having Hezbollah start shooting Syrian-supplied scud missiles into Israel from Lebanon as retaliation for any Western intervention and then Israel, responding in kind. Not saying it would happen, just that it could happen.

What, we the countries that could help, dont want is to have the region blow up.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

...the other external factors in the region.

The "what they can offer us" that you've been ignoring
Alter the situation to one where Syria is an oil supplier or offers us some other valuable, to us, resource. Do you really think the US would be taking the same non-action? Nor do I.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by classicman

The "what they can offer us" that you've been ignoring
Alter the situation to one where Syria is an oil supplier or offers us some other valuable, to us, resource. Do you really think the US would be taking the same non-action? Nor do I.

I am not ignoring it; I just dont think it is that simple or that black and white. But evidently, you do, unless I am reading you wrong. You seem to dismiss or ignore the big elephant in the room (Iran) that did not exist with respect to Libya, Egypt or Yemen, and the potential for a far greater outbreak of violence throughout the region if its its proxy Hezbollah were to jump into the fray.

You dont think a greater Mid East war could erupt if this happened?

Do I think the US would take same non-action?

Yes, under the current administration, based largely on the limited role the US has played in the Libyan action, getting a UN mandate first and then, after the initial action. letting NATO lead.

No, under an administration with a rigid neo-con foreign policy that has to demonstrate US global leadership by being the big dog in every fight.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

No, under an administration with a rigid neo-con foreign policy that has to demonstrate US global leadership by being the big dog in every fight.

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