Latest Arab Spring thread - Page 6

Fair&Balanced · 06-05-2011, 03:19 PM

From last April:

Quote:

Israeli claims Syria has supplied Lebanon's Hezbollah with Soviet-era Scud missiles have fueled already high tensions and heightened fears of a new Middle East war.

If the Israeli assertion is correct, Damascus has boosted the Iranian-backed Hezbollah's already vast arsenal of missiles with the short-range ballistic Scuds, which can reach just about every corner of the Jewish state.

That would mark an ominous shift in the regional balance of power against Israel...

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/...0521271865746/

I am not suggesting it would happen, but is it beyond reasonable to believe that Iran and Syria would direct Hezbollah to fire those scuds if the US or NATO respond militarily in Syria? I dont think so.

Then what happens?

Fair&Balanced · 06-05-2011, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

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.

classicman · 06-05-2011, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

That doesnt mean it has to jump into every battle and be the face of the battle ..............

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

Fair&Balanced · 06-05-2011, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

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?

Fair&Balanced · 06-05-2011, 05:58 PM

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.

classicman · 06-05-2011, 07:55 PM

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?

Fair&Balanced · 06-05-2011, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

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:

Quote:

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.

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).

classicman · 06-05-2011, 09:31 PM

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

Fair&Balanced · 06-05-2011, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

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.

TheMercenary · 06-07-2011, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

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

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

Happy Monkey · 06-07-2011, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

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

The worth of the life is only one side of the equation. The other side is the cost of saving it.

classicman · 06-07-2011, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

The worth of the life is only one side of the equation. The other side is the cost of saving it.

Thank you HM. Simple answer to a simple question.

xoxoxoBruce · 06-07-2011, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

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

They aren't, neither one is worth jack-shit... neither is yours, or mine.

We're talking about nations and their actions.
If a foreign nation kills you, do you think the US would react? Probably, but not because they give a rat's ass about you, only because the US has been insulted.
If the US kills you, would other nations do something about it? Not a chance, not just because they'd get their ass kicked, but because they don't care.

classicman · 06-05-2011, 09:52 PM

It is a question that remains unanswered.

Fair&Balanced · 06-06-2011, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

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.

06-05-2011, 07:55 PM	#6
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	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? __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

06-05-2011, 09:31 PM	#8
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	It comes back to: Why are Libyan lives worth more than Syrian lives? __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

06-05-2011, 09:52 PM	#14
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	It is a question that remains unanswered. __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

06-05-2011, 05:58 PM	#5
Fair&Balanced Operations Operative Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 495	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.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)