Next, Syria? Just asking.

How the White House Sees Situation in Syria as Different than Libya

by Kimberly Schwandt | April 25, 2011


The violence in Syria echoes that of what happened in Libya, with dozens of civilian protestors being killed at the hand of a Middle East leader, yet the White House sees the two scenarios as different.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that Libya was a "unique situation" in that large portions of the country were out of control.

He also says that with Libya, there was also an international consensus to act.

Human rights groups say that more than 300 people have been killed in Syria since the uprising began and more than two dozen demonstrators were either killed or wounded in Daraa just over the weekend.

Carney said they are continuing to look for ways to address the situation in Syria and increase pressure, including possible targeted sanctions.

Sanctions were one of the first moves the White House made against Libya also.

Sen. Joe Liberman, I-Conn., connected the two scenarios and said the U.S. should be doing more. " really think we're not doing anywhere enough to support the freedom fighters in Syria and to oppose Assad. Everything that Gadhafi did in Libya that brought us into the fight there Assad is doing, particularly the slaughter of his own people. And, you know, the world leaders are making statements, but we're not doing anything," Lieberman said on CNN Sunday

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/04/25/how-white-house-sees-situation-syria-different-libya#ixzz1KZ6uog5C

While I would love to see regime change in both Syria and Iran, I sure don't want to stretch our military even thinner. Maybe convince Turkey and others in the region to get Assad to clean up his act?

The question unasked by me, really is why did we go into Libya in the first place? This is happening all over the region, and it isn't an accident IMO. It has to do with Obama's Foreign Policy, his attitude towards Israel, and it is affecting the whole Middle East, which will affect the whole world. Archer will tie it into all of her questions about Muslims, and in a sense it pertains to the perceptions in the West of Middle Easterners in General.

An analogy is that in the 40's we were at war with Japan, in the 50's we were at war with Chinese in South Korea, in the 60's and 70's we were in Vietnam. Not many people can tell the difference in appearance alone, of Asians, so there was an intense period of discrimination in this country towards Asians. They are somewhat lumped together in the minds of those who don't know anything about them or each individual culture. This is similarly true with Middle Easterners. In the 90s we had the first real exposure to most Americans with the first Trade Center Bombing, and then of course, we had 9/11.

I truly think that if the average Middle Easterner, would declare their love for and admiration of the U.S. and attempt to Americanize rather than demand that we respect their culture and laws, and declare vocally their hatred of the radicalists, we might be able to get past a lot of the discrimination. Underneath it all, I still see the Muslims wanting to take over the world.

Actually I believe we went into Libya because Europe didn't want hundreds of thousands of economic/political refugees. Much less chance of that happening with Syria.

Nmysys wrote: The question unasked by me, really is why did we go into Libya in the first place? This is happening all over the region, and it isn't an accident IMO. It has to do with Obama's Foreign Policy, his attitude towards Israel, and it is affecting the whole Middle East, which will affect the whole world. Archer will tie it into all of her questions about Muslims, and in a sense it pertains to the perceptions in the West of Middle Easterners in General.

An analogy is that in the 40's we were at war with Japan, in the 50's we were at war with Chinese in South Korea, in the 60's and 70's we were in Vietnam. Not many people can tell the difference in appearance alone, of Asians, so there was an intense period of discrimination in this country towards Asians. They are somewhat lumped together in the minds of those who don't know anything about them or each individual culture. This is similarly true with Middle Easterners. In the 90s we had the first real exposure to most Americans with the first Trade Center Bombing, and then of course, we had 9/11.

I truly think that if the average Middle Easterner, would declare their love for and admiration of the U.S. and attempt to Americanize rather than demand that we respect their culture and laws, and declare vocally their hatred of the radicalists, we might be able to get past a lot of the discrimination. Underneath it all, I still see the Muslims wanting to take over the world.

Well we already know a couple of things. Obama lied about what we were going to do there. He lied about how long we would be the primary in charge. He lied about a few other things dealing with this. The US is still doing alot of the planning, and we still have active participation going on with our military. We were suppose to be a support role and nothing more. So Mr anti war guy is now the War guy. Guess the new candy has lost its flavor, or do we just call him Bush Jr.

The other question to ask is why did Sen. McCain feel it necessary to fly to Libya to show his support for the insurgents?

To answer Nmnutz question, we'll know if Syria is next if McCain flies there too.

McCain isn't president, your moonbat is! Maybe obama messiah will head over to syria and start kissing every terrorists rear-end, which obama is so good at!

What are you thoughts about Sen. McCain flying to Libya to support the insurgents? Had he won, he would be the current president selected by the right.

Or do you think he would have just sent VP Palin instead?

Nmysys wrote: The question unasked by me, really is why did we go into Libya in the first place? This is happening all over the region, and it isn't an accident IMO. It has to do with Obama's Foreign Policy

Funny you're asking this now. As I recall, when this Libya thing started, you criticized Obama for not doing something earlier.

Nmyss wrote: I am only opposed to the bombing for two reasons, so let me make it clear to you.

First, as this OP says, Obama did not have the authority to do this. George Bush went before Congress for both the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. Do your research and you will see that statement is totally TRUE.

Second, Obama waited and waffled and made threats and then too late IMO did this. Again IMO if he had done this sooner, it would have cost less in Libyan lives and would have had much more effect.

http://285bound.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=9389&p=96806&hilit=libya#p96806

kresspin wrote: What are you thoughts about Sen. McCain flying to Libya to support the insurgents? Had he won, he would be the current president selected by the right.

Or do you think he would have just sent VP Palin instead?

What is the point of making an impossible hypothetical? Why not just discuss the reality?