1 simple answer: Syria has no oil

close thread/

Cos Russia and China are not giving a green light for a war yet. Remember - all super powers agreed to intervene in Libyan conflict before any planes start flying above Benghazi.

• Russia is a giant obstacle atm, and from what I know they are even providing Syria with weapons (incl. anti-air missiles).
• There's nothing comparable to the Libyan Rebel army in Syria, which means that merely supporting the Syrian opposition won't do much.
• Nato would have a lot more casualties in a war against Syria compared to Libya.
• Russia...

The U.S. or NATO shouldn't have to intervene. The U.N. should have already sanctioned and if that failed invaded.

What's the point of the existence of the U.N. if it doesn't nothing? Why does the U.S. have to lead every assault on evil? Why does Russia and China veto every U.N. security action?

Those are the questions we should really be asking.

I say the U.S. and Britain/U.K. should leave the U.N. and ask all free nations to do so too. The free nations of the world should form a new coalition that only deals with security actions, maintaining world peace and humanitarian issues. No international nanny laws, no bullshit currency exchange laws, just security and relief.

The U.N. is crippled by nations like Russia and China. I mean why is Russia a permanent member of the security council with veto power? It's a joke. Every time a dictator is killing his people Russian says no to all actions because they have some kind of business with him. I'm sure you all know about the attack choppers and anti air systems that Russia is supplying to Syria. Here we are trying to stop the blood shed and Russia is giving Assad more weapons to kill his people with. If the U.N. had the best interests of humanity in mind it would kick out all human rights offending nations and quickly act when suffering happens.

Syria should be invaded and it's leaders removed from power. Anything less would be a failure of the free nations of the world. It may be a more complicated war than Libya, but if the U.N. and all supporting nations sent in full support, Assad would have no military option other than surrender.

Oh and don't tell me it's illegal to overthrow governments. It seems like the U.N. protects bad behavior more than it encourage good. Again I will ask what's the point of the U.N. if it does nothing and watches innocent people suffer and die?

The point of the UN is that when the UN takes action, it's action that's been cleared by all major powers, thus helping long-term peace because no large country feels alienated by the existing world order. If the situation in Syria goes too far, Russia will acquiesce as they have in the past on Iran (whereby they now support sanctions).

Very Simple: Libya has Oil, Syria has none........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria#Foreign_trade

Given the policies adopted from the 1960s through the late 1980s, which included nationalization of companies and private assets, Syria failed to join an increasingly interconnected global economy. Syria withdrew from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1951 because of Israel's accession. It is not a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), although it submitted a request to begin the accession process in 2001. Syria is developing regional free trade agreements. As of 1 January 2005, the Greater Arab Free Trade Area (GAFTA) came into effect and customs duties were eliminated between Syria and all other members of GAFTA.

In addition, Syria has signed a free trade agreement with Turkey, which came into force in January 2007, and initialed an Association Agreement with the European Union, which has yet to be signed. Although Syria claims a recent boom in non-oil exports, its trade numbers are notoriously inaccurate and out-of-date. Syria's main exports include crude oil, refined products, raw cotton, clothing, fruits, and grains. The bulk of Syrian imports are raw materials essential for industry, vehicles, agricultural equipment, and heavy machinery. Earnings from oil exports as well as remittances from Syrian workers are the government's most important sources of foreign exchange.^[18]

The conditions are in some respects similar to Libya but not the same. I will also talk about the geopolitical aspects to this at the end.

ANTI AIR DEFENCE

Libya had an antiquated air defence. The decades long sanctions as well as feeling safe from external attack due to Libya cosying up to the West by renouncing WMD's meant it didn't rush to upgrade it's air defence once the sanctions were lifted.

Syrian air defence, though like Libya relies mostly on old Soviet era SAMs and Aircraft is much more dense and robust. It's been quite well maintained and they do have some modern SAM's recently bought from Russia. Another problems is Syria has a lot of it's SAM networks near civilian areas so if NATO were to carry out SEAD missions, collateral damage could be high.

The rebels controlled large swathes of territory in Libya. This degraded Libya's integration of it's air defence. Syria for now has no such problems. Syrian rebels battle for towns and cities but that's as far as it goes for them.

UN SUPPORT

During the Libyan crisis the UN was authorised to create a no fly zone to protect the civilians. There were no veto's from the 5 Permanent Members and thus legal under international law. NATO used this opportunity for regime change and with air support the rebels eventually managed to overthrow and defeat Gadaffi. Russian and Chinese economic interests were curtailed.

As for Syria, Russia and China both don't want a 'Libyan' scenario were the UN R2P is used for regime change. And so both continue to veto UN resolutions and want 'both' sides to come to the negotiating table and Kofi Annan's peace plan to be implemented. On the US side, Bashar Al Assad no longer has the authority to rule Syria and so want him removed.

REALPOLITIK

Obama and more importantly the Pentagon don't really want to get involved in another civil war and in fact just another war. They realise the Syrian situation is far more complex than in Libya and need Russian and Chinese support in Afghanistan and against Iran. Also the rebels seems fragmented and there are Jihadi elements which the US (though not Saudi Arabia and Qatar) seems to be wary of. The current Baathist regime in Syria, though outside the US orbit of influence is a case of better the devil you know.

GEOPOLITICS

Despite the dangers of getting involved military in Syria, there are advantages should the regime there fall. Iran and Hezbollah would lose a major ally. Russia could possibly lose it's only foothold in the Mediterranean (the Tartus naval base).

Sure it does.  Not as much as Libya, but it still produces something like 400,000 barrels a day.

The lack of a clear unify opposition direction is partly to blame for this reluctance to take action. Unlike Libya's transitional council.