So the Syrian civil strife has continued and Western media and politicans have put out the usual rhetoric about how the regime should change, blah blah blah...

But where is the military intervention?  The situation in Syria seems to be a bit more violent than things were in Libya, and they've now been going on longer than things were in Libya before "Nato" started its air bombardment.

It seems to me that as compared to Libya, Syria possesses one of the most sophisticated air defense networks in the world and, while by no means impenetrable, it would be capable of inflicting serious damage on any foreign force that would try to breach it.

Where's the "go go" attitude of "Nato"? Why are we not intervening into Syrian internal matters like we (Americans) are so righteously doing in Libya?  Could it be that the bully on the block doesn't want to pick a fight with a dog that has some real bite? (Don't get me wrong, "Nato" forces could ultimately prevail in Syria but at a substantial loss of "Nato" lives and equipment).

Are we afraid of what the Arabs would think if Syria were invaded?  Why would we care about that?  I thought the Libyan invasion was about "saving Libyan civilian lives".  Are Syrian civilians somehow worth less than Libyan civilians?

The Libyan intervention I do believe ultimately will result in the fall of Quadaffi, of course after a loss of life far higher than if we had let this country deal with its own internal matters by itself.  And it will leave a country whose defenses are destroyed, and one with a power vacuum that likely will be filled by the worst sort of people, but which in any event will be virulently anti-American.  Libya is now ripe for the taking by the worst sorts of elements, courtesy of "Nato".  At least Quadaffi was maintaining detente with the 'Western' world.

The difference in how Syria and Libya have been handled exposes the hypocrisy and the cynicism behind the Libyan invasion.

So the Syrian civil strife has continued and Western media and politicans have put out the usual rhetoric about how the regime should change, blah blah blah...

But where is the military intervention?  The situation in Syria seems to be a bit more violent than things were in Libya, and they've now been going on longer than things were in Libya before "Nato" started its air bombardment.

It seems to me that as compared to Libya, Syria possesses one of the most sophisticated air defense networks in the world and, while by no means impenetrable, it would be capable of inflicting serious damage on any foreign force that would try to breach it.

Where's the "go go" attitude of "Nato"? Why are we not intervening into Syrian internal matters like we (Americans) are so righteously doing in Libya?  Could it be that the bully on the block doesn't want to pick a fight with a dog that has some real bite? (Don't get me wrong, "Nato" forces could ultimately prevail in Syria but at a substantial loss of "Nato" lives and equipment).

Are we afraid of what the Arabs would think if Syria were invaded?  Why would we care about that?  I thought the Libyan invasion was about "saving Libyan civilian lives".  Are Syrian civilians somehow worth less than Libyan civilians?

The Libyan intervention I do believe ultimately will result in the fall of Quadaffi, of course after a loss of life far higher than if we had let this country deal with its own internal matters by itself.  And it will leave a country whose defenses are destroyed, and one with a power vacuum that likely will be filled by the worst sort of people, but which in any event will be virulently anti-American.  Libya is now ripe for the taking by the worst sorts of elements, courtesy of "Nato".  At least Quadaffi was maintaining detente with the 'Western' world.

The difference in how Syria and Libya have been handled exposes the hypocrisy and the cynicism behind the Libyan invasion.






Sometimes you need to pick and choose your fights, and not take on more than you can chew.  And show me any country who's  foreign policy is not hypocritical.  To go further, show me an individual who's views on foreign policy are not somewhat  hypocritical

But where is the military intervention?  The situation in Syria seems to be a bit more violent than things were in Libya, and they've now been going on longer than things were in Libya before "Nato" started its air bombardment.


Because in the case of Syria, the Israelis did it for us a few years ago.  Fun started in 2007 and despite his initial skepticism, the ACW himself changed his mind.

It's not that I believe that Daffy's been up to that sort of thing lately, just that Daffy's 30 years overdue for payback, and the Syrians got the only payback that mattered in 2007.