Why Are We Bombing Lybia and not Syria?

[roo_ster]

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2011/04/22/syria-what-pjmedia-is-doing/
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/pjm-exclusive-video-from-syrias-great-friday-uprising-content-warning/?singlepage=true

(Heads-up: the second link is rather graphic)

Likely because we had nothing to gain by jumping on Libya and smashing Assad's Syrian gov't would be in American interests.  Not certain fiddling in Syria is the right answer, but it is righter than messing in Libya. At the least, we could destroy a client of Iran.

[Fly320s]

We are going alphabetically through the mid-east.

[kgbsquirrel]

We are going alphabetically through the mid-east.

Then why did we skip Iran going from Afghanistan to Iraq?  

[Doggy Daddy]

Then why did we skip Iran going from Afghanistan to Iraq?  

You spell potatoe, I spell potato...  Politics don't use no spiel chigger.

DD

[birdman]

We are going alphabetically through the mid-east.

From afghanistan to iraq to libya, but leaving out Bahrain, Abu dhabi, Jordan, Lebanon (been there, done that?), Kuwait (well, kinda been there), Dubai, Israel, azerbajian, the aforementioned Iran, and if we include predominantly Muslim north Africa, Algeria, ethiopia, Eritrea.

Alphabetical would be easier I guess, especially skipping those readily allied with us.

[Tallpine]

Libya is in the Mid-East 

[birdman]

Libya is in the Mid-East 

That's why I said "predominently muslim north Africa in my response" :)

[gunsmith]

I'll tell you  Why Are We Bombing Libya NOT "lybia" and not Syria, Ghaddaffi dresses like an extra from one of those cheesy Star Wars movies, and that guy from Syria dresses somewhat more normally ... 

B.O hates it when world leaders are not stylish 

[Tallpine]

I heard he got his hat from LL Bean 

[TommyGunn]

Why Are We Bombing Lybia and not Syria?  Washington D.C.  FIFY.

[gunsmith]

[quote author=roo_ster l

Likely because we had nothing to gain by jumping on Libya and smashing Assad's Syrian gov't would be in American interests.  Not certain fiddling in Syria is the right answer, but it is righter than messing in Libya. At the least, we could destroy a client of Iran.


[/quote]

upon rereading your question it looks as if the answer is in the question, the Dear Leader isn't acting in the USA's best interest.

[stevelyn]

In all fairness we do owe Gaddaffi a serious ass whoopin'. Now granted it should have been done a long time ago when it was due, but better late than never I guess.

[HankB]

. . . Likely because we had nothing to gain by jumping on Libya and smashing Assad's Syrian gov't would be in American interests . . .

Some Democrats think the only "just" wars are where we don't have any obvious self-interest . . . although in this case they may have forgotten that Khadaffi was behind a couple of terrorist attacks that killed Americans.

[Jim147]

But we are doing sanctions and the UN is writing a very strongly worded letter.

jim

[longeyes]

Qaddafi was a friend until he wasn't--like Mubarek.  The Red Queen is running the State Dept. and the DOD.

[Blakenzy]

Well, we probably shouldn't be doing anything in either country to begin with... how about first finishing what we started elsewhere?

If "kinetic military action" were taken in Syria, wouldn't Iran light the fuse in Iraq sending us back to 2007? Increased Iranian interference in Afghanistan might be a consequence too. Iran has a couple of warships in the Med... could an "incident" with them occur off the Syrian coast sparking a large scale confrontation?

What about Hezbollah? I don't know just how responsive they really are to Syria, but my guess is that they would try to start something with Israel in retaliation to US raids which just might prompt another Lebanon invasion. And Israel probably would not be well served by getting in to a war (for whatever reason) with any Arab country in the midst of all the revolts and anger going on. With Mubarak gone and pissed off Egyptians potentially swaying their military, who is going to guarantee Egypt remains nice and passive in what might be viewed as another Jew v. Arab war?

To top it off there likely would be very little international support for a UN resolution against Syria's government, even if there were, Russia or China would have probably vetoed it and the US would have to go-it-alone yet again further compromising it's image and credibility in the region. And stretching resources some more.

Gaddafi on the other hand was a conveniently crazy, isolated, easy target that was supposed to go away really fast, and most important of all: the UK, France and other Euro ally countries rely quite a bit on Libyan oil exports. They have a vested interest in Libya and apparently so do we by matter of association with them.

[Blakenzy]

Aha, found this vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqZfaj34nc giving another possible explanation on why Libya is such a big deal... it's all about protecting the value of western fiat currency vs. oil, apparently. In short, if Gadhafi had his way: you want Libyan oil, you would have to pay in gold. He was planning to launch a gold based currency. If this ever became a trend, it would be a death blow to western financial systems. That is why the Europeans especially would be so surprisingly eager to get him out as they import a lot of Libyan oil and really couldn't afford to pay in gold for it..

This also explains why and how the [rebel] Libyan National Transitional Council  was so incredibly fast to set up a brand new Libyan Central Bank http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/africa-mainmenu-27/6915-libyan-rebels-create-central-bank-oil-company that unlike Gadhafi, would guarantee the trade of fiat money for oil. They probably received enormous international banking support to get this institution running. Do you believe a bunch of rag-tag "freedom fighters" getting into such financial complexity even as they still lacked a stable front line on the battle field?

At the end of the video a similar situation is hinted to have been a prime factor that led up to 2003 Iraq invasion. Saddam would stop taking US Dollars http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,00.html , he was going to change over to Euros. No wonder European countries were so adamant to stay out of Iraq. It was in their interest to have Saddam stay as he would be setting the stage for a transition from petro-dollars to petro-euros, favoring the EU and screwing America. What if other oil producing leaders followed? Thinking objectively, that would be a faaaar greater threat to our government than any WMDs Saddam might have had or planned on having.

What do you think, is this  or does it explain a lot? At the very least, it makes more sense than the official "humanitarian" save the children mission.

As a side note, how exactly is the Libyan leader's name spelled?? There are about four variations floating around

[TommyGunn]

....As a side note, how exactly is the Libyan leader's name spelled?? There are about four variations floating around

Uh huh.  Years ago in London I went to Madam Toussad's --- there was a wax dummy there of Kaddafy but I was perplexed at their spelling ;  Gathafy.

Joan Collin's wax dummy was much more interesting.....

[longeyes]

When has our foreign policy been guided by "American interests?"  And which "Americans," exactly, are we talking about?  Please.  The enemies chosen by our Presidents and the U.S. State Dept. and the DOD fit agendas that become unraveled years later, if not by historians then by "conspiracy theorists."  The American people became bystanders in history quite a while ago.