[BGModder]

I mean, Libya was attacked because Muammar Gaddafi was killing civilians, right? Well Syria is essentially doing the same thing... Not to mention the atrocities committed by Bahraini and Saudi forces against protesters in Bahrain. It's definitely not because they're running low on resources or manpower, so what gives? What makes Libya so special? Because they weren't a U.S. ally?

[Rown]

QUOTE

It's definitely not because they're running low on resources or manpower

Actually it kinda is:

QUOTE (New York Times)

And despite NATO’s decision to take command of the air war in Libya, the alliance is running out of bombs after just 11 weeks, he said.

Link

The outgoing Secretary of Defense isn't too happy with NATO's lack of ability when the US isn't there to hold its hand.
Video.

Combined with a lack of political will and you have a recipe for non-involvement. Maybe we'll build up to a Syrian intervention, and maybe not. We didn't respond to Rwanda, Sudan, and we didn't take out Saddam immediately after he committed atrocities against the Kurds and Shia populations in his country. The US and the UN talk a big game but I don't really think they care.

Rown

[BGModder]

QUOTE (Rown @ Saturday, Jun 11 2011, 23:47)

QUOTE It's definitely not because they're running low on resources or manpower Actually it kinda is: QUOTE (New York Times) And despite NATO’s decision to take command of the air war in Libya, the alliance is running out of bombs after just 11 weeks, he said. Link The outgoing Secretary of Defense isn't too happy with NATO's lack of ability when the US isn't there to hold its hand. Video.

They're running out of bombs? You really believe that?

QUOTE (Rown @ Saturday, Jun 11 2011, 23:47)

Combined with a lack of political will and you have a recipe for non-involvement. Maybe we'll build up to a Syrian intervention, and maybe not. We didn't respond to Rwanda, Sudan, and we didn't take out Saddam immediately after he committed atrocities against the Kurds and Shia populations in his country. The US and the UN talk a big game but I don't really think they care.

Doesn't seem so much like a lack of political will than it does a conflict of interest. Iraq was very much under U.S. influence during the Halabja massacre which came on the heels of the Iran-Iraq war, in which Kurdistan Democratic Party and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan fought alongside Iran; and most of the atrocities committed against Shias were in the early 1980s because, like the Kurds, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and Islamic Dawa Party were fighting for the Islamic Republic of Iran (it was also because he was convicted of these atrocities that he was executed in 2006). It wasn't until the Gulf War in which Saddam revolted against the West, attempted to capture Kuwait and attacked Israel that the U.S. became involved. Not to mention similar acts of genocide have been committed in Saudi Arabia against the Shia minority that go unreported and completely ignored, yet the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are very close diplomatically. In fact, there was a news story not too long ago about the U.S. giving Saudi Arabia millions of dollars in weapons to "protect themselves from Iran." It wasn't until late 2007 that Libya started to fall under heavier Russian influence that they began to be demonized and condemned... and here we are now bombing them, and only them, for committing crimes against his people that are also being committed in several other countries.

This post has been edited by BGModder on Sunday, Jun 12 2011, 06:10

[Irviding]

#1 because NATO as mentioned sucks. I do believe they are running out of bombs since the US pulled back. The US is the only thing that is keeping it together. England and France are the only two nations in all of NATO who actually matter and have military budgets that go over 50 billion dollars, and even that is nothing compared to what the US stands. Sure, Germany has a very advanced military, but it is small and underfunded. NATO as a whole is a joke.

#2 because if we did that to Syria it could cause grave economic issues. Libya has no US interests like Syria does.

[sivispacem]

There are two relatively simple reasons why NATO hasn't intervened in Syria yet.

1) The Syrian uprising has yet to even come close to the scale of the Libyan uprising. As I've mentioned before one of the more critical elements of the Libyan intervention is that it was supported by (to all estimates) a majority of the population. Notwithstanding Gadaffi's utterly illegitimate and disproportionate use of force against his own people, threats of genocide ect, he had, by sheer popular opinion, lost all mandate to govern the nation. Ergo, he could no longer hold the legitimate monopoly on the use of force by the security services. Self-interest also plays a significant role. Whilst we dress up the current intervention in Libya as "humanitarian", it's real motivation is two-fold; firstly, to demonstrate to the wider Arab world that the West is happy to support them in seeking their self-determination and democratisation, and secondly to attempt to establish a regime with more friendly diplomatic and trade relations with NATO powers so as to improve both sides economic prospects and also conveniently push China out of a very lucrative potential market.

2) Iran. Simple as that, Iran. We've all seen what casualties Iranian-funded insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have caused to Coalition forces, and an incursion into Syria would inflame tensions something awful. Syria is the lever through which Iran exerts its power over the region; it's through Syria that Iran ships weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah, for instance. In fact, it would be quite fair to say that Syria are Iran's only true ally. Whilst it would be endlessly beneficial to the West for the Assad regime to come crashing down (and therefore severely limit Iran's sphere of influence, especially with Saudi Arabia growing to be the primary military as well as economic power in the region), we can't intervene because Iran's response would be to encourage, train and fund those hard-line Syrians who still support Assad into an irregular insurgency; therefore most likely demanding a NATO or multilateral "peacekeeping" ground force to be set up in Syria, which, like most Arab states, has a degree of sectarian tension. The establishment of such a force would, in all likelihood, mirror-image the establishment of the multilateral force in Iraq of Afghanistan- except, in this example, Iran would probably pump even larger sums of money into Syria to incite an insurgency, such is Iran's need for a friendly government in Syria.



@Irviding- please don't overstate the importance of the US in the current intervention in Libya (and likely in any future military intervention in the region); if one power of those involved deserves to take the credit for their relative success, it's France.

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Sunday, Jun 12 2011, 09:25

[Josh]

Another simple reason is due to the relative size of the two countries. Libya is about 10x as large as Syria in terms of area. And that makes all of the difference, because you don't want to be bombing civilian populations if you can help it.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Josh @ Sunday, Jun 12 2011, 13:21)

Another simple reason is due to the relative size of the two countries. Libya is about 10x as large as Syria in terms of area. And that makes all of the difference, because you don't want to be bombing civilian populations if you can help it.

This is important too. Whilst the majority of direct fighting in Libya has been in and around towns and cities, the majority of the armoured vehicles, air bases and command and control centres targeted by NATO during the intervention have been isolated from civilian areas. The same would not be true of any intervention in Syria.

[Irviding]

Silver, that's simply not true. While France and England have the equipment and military strength (equipment as in vehicles, helicopters, airplanes, strength as in troop numbers and troop training/skills) to handle these interventions, they do not have the ammunition. You've seen the articles. NATO cannot sustain this operation without US ammunition and supplies. Due to austerity measures throughout Europe, you guys have absolutely nothing in terms of military budgets, and we are left picking up the tab. Though I agree with your point #1 extensively, and #2 is a very interesting point. Though I do disagree about Assad's leaving being the best for the west (no rhyme intended there). Don't forget he was western backed for years prior to this uprising. Maybe after Libya Europe will think twice about decimating their military budgets.

This post has been edited by Irviding on Sunday, Jun 12 2011, 16:40

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Sunday, Jun 12 2011, 17:37)

Silver, that's simply not true. While France and England have the equipment and military strength (equipment as in vehicles, helicopters, airplanes, strength as in troop numbers and troop training/skills) to handle these interventions, they do not have the ammunition. You've seen the articles. NATO cannot sustain this operation without US ammunition and supplies. Due to austerity measures throughout Europe, you guys have absolutely nothing in terms of military budgets, and we are left picking up the tab. Though I agree with your point #1 extensively, and #2 is a very interesting point. Though I do disagree about Assad's leaving being the best for the west (no rhyme intended there). Don't forget he was western backed for years prior to this uprising. Maybe after Libya Europe will think twice about decimating their military budgets.

In terms of munitions, what has the US contributed to the current operation? Around 100 cruise missiles on the opening night, and a handful of B-2 raids against Libyan airfields. US military assistance, save for logistics, stopped at the end of March. Since then, it's been almost entirely down to France and the UK to maintain the military operations. I'm not denying the statement that Robert Gates made about the weaknesses in NATO, and their reliance on US logistical assistance- it's quite true, for certain items, many of the NATO member states are woefully under-equipped. But it's not the case with all munitions or equipment, not by any means. I don't buy into this "only 30 days of iron bombs" bollocks, it just simply isn't true- certainly not in the case of the UK, anyway. Exactly what, in terms of munitions, is the UK reliant on the US for? Tomahawk missiles- yes, that's a given, as they're US produced and supplied and no-one has been given license to produce them domestically. JDAM kits for the Mk 80 series- again, no domestic production of them, and they're being produced in numbers far too low for sustained military operations as it is. Bizarrely, we're reliant on the US for 5.56x45 NATO ammunition, but that's 1) irrelivent as there are no ground forces involved and b) almost entirely due to the US pressuring NATO into adopting the 7.65x51mm, and later 5.56x45mm rounds, despite both having considerable problems (recoil in the former, stopping power in the latter) and the .280 British round being ballistically superior to both. Anyway, besides the two aforementioned items, I can't think of anything that the UK is reliant on the US military for. Storm Shadow? Brimstone? Enhanced Paveway? ALARM? These are the four weapons that are being used predominantly by the UK in attacks on Libyan materiel, backed up by UK-provided AWACS and UK provided airborne command and control.

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Sunday, Jun 12 2011, 18:30

[Spaghetti Cat]

Oil? Lybia has it and Syria doesn't...and I'm not one of those 'blood for oil types'.
Also explains why France/Italy/England are taking the lead and the US isn't.
Just my own personal opinion.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Spaghetti Cat @ Thursday, Jun 16 2011, 19:43)

Oil?  Lybia has it and Syria doesn't...and I'm not one of those 'blood for oil types'.  Also explains why France/Italy/England are taking the lead and the US isn't.  Just my own personal opinion.

As a general rule, anyone who plays the "oh it's oil" card is either utterly deluded or has quite literally no idea what they're talking about. Not to be offensive, but not only does all the evidence run contrary to the idea, but those who continue to support it tend to do so without understanding it's origins or any of the factual information surrounding it. Personally, I have literally no idea where this absurd "war for oil" idea comes from, even in relation to Iraq- it runs entirely contrary to both logic and history. What's happened to oil production in Iraq since 2003? It's gone down. Who have been the primary benificiaries of oil contracts in Iraq since 2005? China and Russia. Not quite seeing where this idea of a "war-for-profit" comes in, personally. In the case of Libya as things currently stand, who has been getting Libyan oil? France, Spain and Italy, predominantly. Is the current conflict likely to tangibly increase oil production? Well, seen as NATO have been bombing storage facilities in Tripoli and Gadaffi's forces have been attempting to destroy Mirata's oil processing facilities, it's pretty doubtful. Also worth mentioning that whilst Libyan oil production is three times that of Syria, it's also more than 10 times the physical size so oil production is, comparatively speaking, lower.

But hey, let's not prevent the truth from getting in the way of recycling Iraq-War-Era fallacies.

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Thursday, Jun 16 2011, 22:57

[General Goose]

I basically agree with what sivispacem said. The actions of al-Assad are disgusting and, while it has not (yet) degraded to a full-out civil war like we're seeing in Libya, the West can't do much other than just condemn him and try and pass scornful UN resolutions. Maybe if NATO resources weren't already focused on things like Libya, we might be able to look past the problems like Iran and get involved in Syria, but I doubt it.

[vertical limit]

The answer is simple.

There is no petrol in Syria.

I am Libyan myself.

[Rown]

QUOTE (Spaghetti Cat @ Thursday, Jun 16 2011, 12:43)

Oil?  Lybia has it and Syria doesn't...and I'm not one of those 'blood for oil types'.  Also explains why France/Italy/England are taking the lead and the US isn't.  Just my own personal opinion.

QUOTE (vertical limit @ June 18 @ 2011, 16:39)

The answer is simple. There is no petrol in Syria. I am Libyan myself.

In between there was silversaddlespaceman's point that it's unlikely an oil thing but you know... whatevs. Out of curiosity are you a Libyan IN Libya or out adventuring the non-desert?

As far as weapons stockpiles go, YES I am still willing to believe that NATO is at a loss. The US buys missiles by the thousand because odds are... we will use them in some conflict or another. Most of NATO probably doesn't view war as an immediate certainty when they write up their budgets AND not all of NATO is participating.

Right now I'm kinda partial to the idea of Erdogan getting fed up with Assad and deposing him but it's probably out on the 6th sigma of probability as Turkey would have to explain that with their treatment of the Kurds.

Rown

[vertical limit]

I am from Libya, my parents are from there and I just left about a month ago.


Why

- Fuel is dried, no more fuel, you have to wait about 13 hours in the que just tonged a turn but then there might be no fuel in the station so you have to wait additional hours.

- All the teachers that were in school fled away pretty early.

- Fruits and Vegetables are now 5X times the normal price and they give you food poisining because they are old and a bit rotten.

- No more exports or imports.

- They proposed all that military sh*t to protect the civilians but they still keep dieing.

- Water and electricity keeps shutting down.

- And why make you ask that I still support Colonel Ghaddafi..
It is because I have some loyalty, 42 years as a leader, why now?


One thing I got good from this revolution is because it showed who were my real friends.

Some of my friends even deleted from facebook because of who I support but I didn't give a f*ck infact I am grateful.

I still have some real friends who respect my decision even though they want the
Leader out, they are still good friends and I also respect their decision.

[d0mm2k8]

QUOTE (vertical limit @ Sunday, Jun 19 2011, 02:30)

- And why make you ask that I still support Colonel Ghaddafi.. It is because I have some loyalty, 42 years as a leader, why now?

Well the fact that he's been the leader for 42 years shows how sh*t the political system is. No offence, but I bet you anything in the damn world that he would never give a sh*t about you; he would trade your life for his in a second if he had the chance so what is that loyalty worth?

What has he ever done for you?

QUOTE

The answer is simple. There is no petrol in Syria. I am Libyan myself.

Did you even read DDS' post? The entire oil argument is such an illogical fallacy that only a moron or someone who's emotionally compromised (such as yourself) would buy into it. I'd explain more, but I can't be bothered since it's already been covered by sivispacem's post that you probably didn't regard due to personal bias.

This post has been edited by d0mm2k8 on Sunday, Jun 19 2011, 03:28

[vertical limit]

When I was shot by the rebels, they gave me 30 grand in British Pounds, they said they would have paid me in dollars but as you know the money in the bank is frozen.

They gave me 10 grand for each bullet that hit me, that's 20 and another 10 for telling them the rebel safehouse.

They gave us the latest Toyota LandCruiser with full car options, it was olive-green, it looked very nice.

And at the Libyan-Tunisian border, it was a very long Que. but because I was in the Que., they let pass first.


About the second thing, sorry I didn't read previous posts.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (vertical limit @ Saturday, Jun 18 2011, 23:39)

The answer is simple. There is no petrol in Syria.

...Hang on. See my post above.

Now, I know that your understanding of the subject matter is twisted by your personal involvement in it, but there are some things that are just factual. Like, for instance, the fact that Syria produces more oil per square kilometre of land than Libya does. Three-and-a-half times as much, in fact. And even if one ignores the size difference between the two states, the overall oil production of Syria is still a pretty sizeable- as well as 530,000 barrels per day of domestically extracted oil, they also contain processing and shipping facilities that are used by many other Middle Eastern nations in the transportation of their oil.

As a percentage of their economy, Syria is more heavily oil-focused than Libya.

[General Goose]

QUOTE (vertical limit @ Sunday, Jun 19 2011, 01:30)

- And why make you ask that I still support Colonel Ghaddafi.. It is because I have some loyalty, 42 years as a leader, why now?

I understand you have a personal interest in this conflict that goes far beyond what I have, but this whole argument ("he's been 42 years, why now?") makes no sense. I understand that you may support Gaddafi and may have a justifiable dislike of the rebels, but "they've been there for a long time" does not give them a mandate to do whatever they want and rule without opposition. I do oppose term limits in politics as a matter of principle, but even elected long-term incumbents, as opposed to long-term tyrants like Gaddafi, don't have a "right" to hold that position just because they've been there for ages.

[vertical limit]

Yup I do get your going.


About 36 hours ago, Nato bombed a small residence area, they said they were aiming for a military but everyone who lives there knows that the closed military base is about 25 KM away and even if there is a military base Nato already bombed it.

I have a question though, how can Nato make a mistake with the aim, I am just curious.

But let me ask you this.

Why didn't they got involved with the other countries uprising, why Libya's uprising only?

Syria is using heli attacks and nobody even mentioned Syria's uprising.

I put a lot of thought in that bro.