Libya uses army to attack civilians = US involvement - Syria uses army to attack civilians = Wheres Obama?

N A T O,.....United Nations.....

your ignorance is showing.

"Can I get just one of you Lefties to admit that Obama dug himself a hole with his reasoning regarding his attacks on Libya?"

He's supporting a UN action in Libya. The rebellion there is organized. This is not the case in Syria.

If we attacked Syria we would be on our own. That means we would pay for the entire invasion ourselves. Why do you think we should waste money running around the middle east attempting to free the masses?

Undoubtedly if Obama were getting involved in Syria, you would be complaining that he shouldn't get us involved in a fourth war.

In fact I'm pretty sure you've asked a number of questions here in which you've complained that oba shouldn't be involved in Libya, either.

Make up your mind: are wars to save non-US civilians justified or not? And when you answer please also consider your earlier support for the war in Iraq, which I also remember from many of your previous questions.

Libya is virtually unique in that it is a relatively simple conflict where we can get involved in a limited way that might help and has very little chance of hurting. That's VERY unusual. You've got to weigh the pros and cons of involvement in every situation and Libya is the rare situation where there are just very few reasons not to go in.

First, Libya is not being supported by any foreign power. Syria is a close ally with Iran and Lebanon who will will support them in their efforts to wage a sustained war and Lebanese and our efforts there might inflame the Lebanese hard-liners. Iran would use their allies among Iraqi terrorist groups (who are powerful only because of Iran's support anyway) to arm Lebanon. Libya doesn't have that. They have the weapons in Tripoli, but that's it.

Second, in Libya, there are clear battle lines. In Syria, the rebels are being attacked within the major cities covered by civilians. The rebels quickly surged and took control of the western half of Libya, making Benghazi a major supply center and base. Refugees were largely able to escape leaving mostly fighters behind. There are plenty of civilians and many of them are dying, but as these types of things go, there are viable targets that the US can hit from the air and effective tactics we can take without sending in ground troops, minimizing risks to our own troops. In Syria, we would have to be on the ground. Their government closed the border with Jordan, where most of the civilians would have tried to escape. We can't take any action against the government without slaughtering the civilians ourselves unless we go in with ground troops which would be a major commitment and cause massive loss of life, both American and Syrian. Plus, we simply don't have the ground troops to do it with our commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Third, there is no real risk that the group that would take power in Libya would be worse than Gadhafi. The most dangerous group there, Al Qaeda in North Africa, is a minor entity. If we didn't get involved, there was real fear that anti-American sentiment would allow them to grow in power, but with our involvement, the rebels have been increasingly pro-American, reducing the power of Al Qaeda in North Africa. On top of that, Gadhafi would not be unlikely to take terrorist actions abroad. It's not clear he would, but he has threatened it recently. His threats are credible because he influenced Scotland's government to free the perpetrator of their largest terrorist attack, who he welcomed home as a hero, and he is widely suspected of planning and funding that attack anyway. In Syria, Iran's influence and their proximity to Iraq could easily create a puppet government from Iran that's just as bad as the one in Syria, but more influential abroad. Even if we could get rid of the Syrian government, there's no guarantee that would be a good thing. Look what happened to other groups we've supported, like the Mujahadeen who became the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the Shah whose overthrow lead to the Ayatollah, Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war, etc., etc., etc. We have to be very careful taking sides in these things.

Other minor differences, in Libya, we don't need to send in weapons. While they are certainly outgunned, they have weapons from Libyan military facilities the rebels have seized and military divisions that have defected and turned their weapons over. It's dangerous to arm an unestablished group. The rebels don't have such advantages in Syria and we aren't going to send weapons into the country. Also, Libya doesn't have much of a loyal army. They are mostly using foreign mercenaries from Algeria and other neighboring country with only a small band of loyal Libyans. When the money dries up, they will abandon Gadhafi. In Syria, they have ideologues in their military who will do the government's bidding in the name of God and country. That's much harder to break.

You may criticize the notion that "that's different", but really, it's war. Do you think any two conflicts are the same? Do you think that just because one situation is bad and so is another that automatically we should have the same response? War is very complicated and a complicated analysis is needed to determine what actions we can take.

What the US government IS looking to do in Syria, is pressure their European allies to issue a travel ban and economic sanctions targeted at the Syrian elite who in turn can pressure the Syrian government (the US doesn't have enough involvement in Syria for our own sanctions to be meaningful). It's not a great solution, but unless you've got a better idea, I support that as an effort. If you have a better idea, speak up. But I haven't heard one yet.

And Bahrain and Yemen are a lot more complicated than Syria too.

Syria has WMD so Obama will not say anything

well Duh! cause right... Syria is um.. not Libya... and... obama said! that Libya was violating human rights and um... Well... He HASN"T said anything about syria, so how do i even know that's a real country!?

and... your link is obviously biased and probably originated from fox news!!!!

(lol at your Additional details.. yeah everything above is sarcasm :-P)

Obama doesn't want to attack a country with WMDs.

(What if his crew is too inept to find them?)

Vinny, relax. Have some faith in the President. Have an independent mind.

You cry when he bombs a country, you cry when he doesn't bomb a country.

Liberal hypocrisy.