bob1/28,

"When will we learn to stay out of it ???"

I didn't know we were involved in it, not militarily, at least. You must know something I don't know.

Mickey

It is a no brain-er. As long as we ( Hillary or any other person from the state dept ) are talking to the Syrian Opposition they will be labeled as puppets of the U.S. All of the middle east will see it that way .

bob

bob1/28,

"As long as we ( Hillary or any other person from the state dept ) are talking to the Syrian Opposition they will be labeled as puppets of the U.S. All of the middle east will see it that way ."

Then why has the Arab League placed sanctions on the Assad government if they see the opposition as being puppets of the United States?

Bob - they will be called that - but it's kind of meaningless - like when some dbag calls Obama a Socialist. The Arab countries are capable of seeing things as they are (and of spinning what they know to manipulate their constituencies.)

I disagree completely with the 'war for oil' argument for Libya intervention or Syria (current subject matter of thread). From my perspective, the Unitied Nations fulfilled its mandated mission (as envisioned in the Charter and the predecessor organization League of Nations) to protect to oppressed from the agressive and inhumanitarian actions of a brutal government. We have witnessed the historic failures of non-intervention in Abbyssinia, Manchuria, Rwanda, etc... Libya is not part of this list - thankfully.

Correct - NATO was not designed for this type of mission. But times change, alliances evolve to new situations and realities, etc... The UN authorized this mission (10 votes yes in Security Council, 5 votes abstention). NATO (and coaltion allies) were simply the military instrument of the United Nations authorized action. This is an important distinction that you must acknowledge in your post in order for people to take your opinions as serious and credible.

There are many geo-political reasons that are sound for the intervention in Libya that are far more important than the 'war-for-oil' model that seems to dominate your thinking. Notably the following -

1) Prevent a massacre of civilians in Eastern Libya (notably Benghazi)

2) Prevent large refugee flows of Libyans into neigboring Tunisia and Egypt which would only amplify poltical discontent in these nations that are also in a state of political upheaval due to their own quests to pursue political freedoms

3) Prevent another failed state scenario (such as Somalia or Afghanistan) in the Meditteranean.

Etc... the list is actually quite long but I don't want to construct a giant thread.

Syria is a more complicated due to the ethnic/sectarian composition of the nation and the fact that the opposition does not hold territory (signficant difference from Libya). Syria's implosion poses significantly greater possibilities for regional instability than Libya (those the regional instability of a failed Libya would be quite horrific as well).

Bottom line is that these conflicts in the Mid-East and any potential actions taken by UN, EU, NATO, USA-UK-FRANCE, Arab League, or whatever amalgated alliance structure should not and can not be solely assigned to the economic model of intervention based exclusively to resouces (i.e. Oil). It is a tempting model since it is so simple to understand and seems to be all-explaining, which is why I suspect that you have gravititated to this belief. It's easier than thinking.

Here is another question for you.....Somalia. Thousands of civilian women and children being starved to death by Warlord. Where is NATO? or does Somalia not fit into the parameters of NATO's referendum. Lets include all the other civil wars around the world. Please explain. What about North Korea and its human rights violations against its people? Explain NATO's position on that to. NATO and the UN are two different organizations. When does NATO do the dirty work for the UN, the UN is suppose to have its own peace keepers.

Jeff-362275:

I'd love to explain all of this, but this requires many pages of writing.

I see your greater moral-ideological point, but you're drawing simplistic moral equvialencies from situations around the globe to somehow attack NATO, but your questions are just rhetorical questions of no military, diplomatic or poltical value. These questions do not ask anything of value that could potentionally be used to resolve or manage an international issue. I'm sorry to say but these are the types of questions that are typically asked by young university students that show up to class and attempt to participate in discussion - but have not read their text books and consequently can not really contribute anything.

I'll attempt to answer you on the condition that you answer the following;

1) What would you do in Somalia? How would you marshall world opinion and resources from UN and regional partners to resolve this crisis?

2) How would you resolve all civil wars/conflicts on the globe? Would you have a model approach of 'one size fits all' to resovle complicated conflicts have raged on various continents for decades in some cases?

3) What would you do in the case of North Korea? How would you marshall world opinion and UN support to counter a China or Russian veto? What would you do in this case that has plagued the planet for over six decades?

You ask "When does NATO do the dirty work of the UN" -

The UN depends on collaborating nations to enforce protection measures that require military force. This is how the UN was developed and envisioned. In the case of Libya, NATO was the ideal instrument to enforce operations in this theatre of the globe. For civil conflicts in sub-saharan Africa, the AU may be the more appropriate military organization. In the Mid-East, the Arab League alliance is required. In Latin America, the OAS may be required to enforce military operations and sanctions against an agressive state in the region that simliarly attempts to crush its citizenry with tanks and bombs. Etc... you get the point. This is how things work. The UN depends upon others to enforce international law (or as defined in the confines of your dsyfunctional mind - 'Dirty Work').

Your mind is dominated by two forces that render you incapable of comprehending the global situation -

a) conspiracry theories

b) lack of knowlege of regional history and diplomatic law of the UN and other international bodies

Under these circumstances, you won't be able to properly address the questions that I asked above, nor would you comprehend my responses.

Let's just call it day. Best of luck to you.

ARS, I don't know Jeff nor do I necessarily subscribe to his beliefs, but I was amazed at your vitriolic response to his very legitimate question: Why do we intervene is some countries and not others? Why Libya and not Somalia, for instance? At no point does he say that he wants to intervene in these other countries, he's just asking why the UN chose Libya.

You stated that the UN fulfilled its mandated charter in Libya to protect civilians. It actually went far beyond it and began an offensive air campaign against Ghaddafi, even trying to assassinate him at his compound in Tripoli. You forgot to mention that. And you assume that it's a good thing NATO is evolving outside of the European theater. That is a matter of opinion that Jeff disagrees with and so do I. There's a reason why Russia belongs to the UN and not NATO, and why it frets when a nation-state in its sphere of influence wants to join NATO. The UN is an inclusive international organization meant for dialogue and NATO is an exclusive military organization representing primarily Europe, especially Western Europe (and the U.S., of course). World peace is better served keeping the two separate before we have WWIII over a country like Georgia.

I'll answer your questions:

1) I wouldn't.

2) I wouldn't.

3) I wouldn't.

It isn't a conspiracy theory to say that countries go to war for economic resources. It's a well-known fact! We need to stop being the world's police and overcome our addiction to oil! Vote Ron Paul!