GMTom wrote:It was asked before and it seems like an even more important question now,
Why the intervention in Libya but not Syria?

The supporters here claimed Libya was nothing but humanitarian support of the rebels who would be slaughtered. Odd, that's happening now in Syria but we don't seem to care? Every reason for supporting this Libyan intervention would apply to Syria but we hear nothing but crickets on that issue. The similarities between Iraq and Libya were pointed out and the liberals here claimed the two were vastly different yet in Syria it is identical yet they remain silent, if Libya is the "right thing to do" then it follows (by the liberal logic, not mine) that we must also intervene in Syria.
And Bahrain, and Yemen, and ......

And, in typical UN fashion, Syria may get on the Human Rights Council.

The answer is "oil." Syria has little/none. Libya has a lot and our allies use it.

no kidding it's about oil. But have our supporters even suggested this to be the case? Nope, it's about humanitarian aid to assist the downtrodden rebels. And with that supposed reasoning, they simply have no other position than to support the same thing in Syria. If they balk at Syrian help, then their position on Libya is failed as is their position already taken on Iraq. Partisan politics only!

Aside from partisan politics and oil, other differences include:

1. Terrain.
2. Ethnicity. Syria has many ethnic groups (Kurds, Christians, Sunnis, Shiites, and subdivisions of those last 2.) Libya has 2 large tribes. I think they are trying to figure this out.
3. Syria's neighbors are still assessing the situation. Turkey who is a NATO ally is worried about Kurdish independence may not support an action. Israel is weighing the devil they know vs. the one in the wings.
4. The Arab League hasn't called for intervention.
5. Our allies, England and France, have not instigated for intervention yet (although oil may be involved here).
6. We are still assessing the success of the Libyan intervention. We made a tough bet; I don't think people are ready to double down. That's a different decision.
7. Refugees. England and France and Spain were worried about Libyan and African refugees; I don't think that is at issue here.
8. It's still early days. We didn't intervene in Libya right away.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Can you not answer the question? We all can see you oppose the current policy, and prefer two others. I asked which of those you would advocate, no to simply restate yourself.

I know your game. You don't care what the answer is. You just want something to dissect.

No, I just want you to piss or get off the pot.

I note you're not taking a position on which, if either, you prefer. Are you indifferent?

No. I'm not that indifferent. I tend to prefer the 'pull out' option, followed by the 'stay in at about where we are', and least of all the 'go in and take him out'. I've never been a fan of state-sponsored assassination, no matter who the target is. I also doubt it would be as simple as it's advocates would like to think, and the very quagmire that you would want to avoid could well result.

I'm not entirely ambivalent, but I would support either. What I can't support is simply maintaining the status quo.

Sure, but again, if it's a matter of degree, meaning we don't go all or nothing, which direction would you tend to go for? It's all very well to attack the current policy, but are you hedging your bets a bit? If they pick one, you can retrospectively claim to have backed it (if it works) or not (if it fails). Good politics, but not really open debate.

GMTom wrote:in Syria it is identical

Is it? Here's how I understand the situation in Libya had developed before we intervened:

1. People started to demonstrate
2. The regime tried to stop them with force
3. Demonstrations continued
4. The regime responded with harsher force
5. Parts of the regime decided that this was going too far, and joined with the demonstrators
6. The government responded by treating it as civil war
7. As part of that civil war, the government (and perhaps others) attacked civilian targets indiscriminately
8. The rebels looked like they may lose the civil war

And in Syria, we are at about stage 4.

They are not identical situations, even though in both cases the government and it's supporters are killing people.

I disagree at the stage we are in, tanks rolling out against the demonstrators, that's further down the list isn't it?
Pretty much the same thing.

and RayJay, your differences have nothing to do with the reasons that came to play in Libya.
If the people are suffering at the hands of the military, then terrain doesn't matter, Ethnicity, etc
the ONLY difference so far is the rest of the Arab League has not come out against this yet (maybe they have, I have not followed it too closely since we are not sucked in YET and if not, after seeing the situation in Libya they may be scared to say anything)

danivon wrote:No. I'm not that indifferent. I tend to prefer the 'pull out' option, followed by the 'stay in at about where we are', and least of all the 'go in and take him out'. I've never been a fan of state-sponsored assassination, no matter who the target is. I also doubt it would be as simple as it's advocates would like to think, and the very quagmire that you would want to avoid could well result.

In order:

1. Withdraw entirely.
2. Go in, take out Ghaddafi, and leave (no nation building).
3. Continue with the partially effective status quo.

It's all very well to attack the current policy, but are you hedging your bets a bit? If they pick one, you can retrospectively claim to have backed it (if it works) or not (if it fails). Good politics, but not really open debate.

It's not about politics. The President committed us to a war I don't think we should have entered. To me, the worst possible use of troops is to avoid losing. Either accomplish something permanent or get out. We can't stay there indefinitely. However, it is appearing we are heading for a lot more than "weeks, not months," as the President said.

GMTom wrote:I disagree at the stage we are in, tanks rolling out against the demonstrators, that's further down the list isn't it?
Pretty much the same thing.

and RayJay, your differences have nothing to do with the reasons that came to play in Libya.
If the people are suffering at the hands of the military, then terrain doesn't matter, Ethnicity, etc
the ONLY difference so far is the rest of the Arab League has not come out against this yet (maybe they have, I have not followed it too closely since we are not sucked in YET and if not, after seeing the situation in Libya they may be scared to say anything)

Says you. The State Department has continually said that the facts and circumstances of each country have to be considered independently. (I'm not saying they are always right; I'm just saying that they are differences and you have quoted no support for your OPINION that it is all partisan politics.)

Why don't you take my differences one by one and argue against them?

1. Terrain impacts pilot safety.
2. Post intervention situation is impacted by ethnicity. You have to think about what post intervention will look like before going in.
3. Turkey is a neighbor and NATO member. They are against intervention, I believe. Libya didn't have that. Do you think it is important to consider our NATO allies in an intervention?
4. A second intervention is different than a first.

Why are you so easily willing to dismiss these factors that don't fit into your world view?

GMTom wrote:I disagree at the stage we are in, tanks rolling out against the demonstrators, that's further down the list isn't it?
Pretty much the same thing.

Nope. That was stage 4. The rebellion was started in reaction to the excessive use of military-grade weapons to quell civil disobedience. Hence the number of military and political leaders who are leading the rebellion.

Doctor Fate wrote:In order:

1. Withdraw entirely.
2. Go in, take out Ghaddafi, and leave (no nation building).
3. Continue with the partially effective status quo.

There now, dearie. That wasn't so hard now, was it? I see we agree still on the best course.

I do not disagree with what you state, what I disagree with is the logic those who wanted to intervene in Libya had. It was about protecting civilian rebels from an oppressive army. When this started, what were the reasons?
Excuse me but I don't remember Obama saying anything about the terrain, he said nothing about ethnicity, he said nothing about any of your list of reasons. Looks like these reasons do not come into play now do they?

OF COURSE they do, as does oil
But the logic stated by Obama and liberals who support the Libyan intervention are indeed the same!

and what DID Obama give as reasons?

Now, here's why this matters to us. Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Gadhafi would commit atrocities against his people. Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue.

The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners.

The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered. The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun.

see same reasons, the two are identical

You do realize that Obama cannot openly say all of the ways that he and his staff are considering an issue. He does have to be circumspect, and tactful, and hide his more Machiavellian machinations, don't you think?

What part of continued colossal failure in Middle East military inventions is making the US and Europe desirable in bringing about Libyan freedom and prosperity? The US has dragged it's feet and inhibited the peaceful revolutions, but as soon as there's a violent civil war they jump right in to 'help'.

Okay Ray Jay, I realize there are other reasons (like oil) but the President is getting us into a war without giving the full reasons. And let's give him a pass for a moment, has anyone who supports thie Libyan intervention mention anything but humanitarian aid, stopping a bloodbath and that sort of thing? Did they mention oil? Did they mention any of your other reasons? Nope, their stated reasons would simply require them to also support intervention in Syria as well.