Simple minds are unwilling or unable to consider the complexity of foreign policy, particularly if an Obama policy might actually be working with little or no cost to the US in $ or boots on the ground at risk.

They might agree that Iran and Hezbollah are assholes but not a potential threat if there were to be a US or NATO military intervention in Syria.

They certainly dont understand that it is not in US interest to act w/o a mandate and broad support within the region.

Or they claim that Libya is supported by a major terrorist organization.

Or they suggest that US actions are ALL about money, oil, power, control but cant explain how Bosnia fit into that scenario or why GHW Bush didnt invade Iraq for the oil and control when he had the chance.

Simple minds are satisfied with simple solutions.

Say it without attack please

It would be nice to be able to use the forces of the US to prevent atrocities everywhere, and to promote the positive change in human rights that can come from booting out totalitarian rulers. However, just as the US protects its interests and projects its power, every other nation on the planet also protects its interests and projects its power. This makes the world a very complex chess game.

Unfortunately, at the bottom line of this utterly complex chess game are always human beings. And when a world of different interests starts playing the game, some pawns are not only undervalued, but sacrificed on purpose.

Yeah! And that goes for all y'all! :rolleyes:

The worth of the life is only one side of the equation. The other side is the cost of saving it.

Thank you HM. Simple answer to a simple question.

The political spin and the other crap THEY keep spewing just boils down to one thing.
Lives are NOT equal in value.
Syrian Lives are not as valuable in this situation - Period.

I'm confused Classicman? First, do you disagree with the United States' decision to not intervene in Syria? Second, are you stating that the US chose that Syrian lives are not worth as much as Libyan's or are you stating that the current political environment dictated that intervention in Syria could potentially bring about large consequences to the United States, consequences that were not present with Libya, and the US responded to that, making it appear as if Syrian lives are not worth as much as Libyan's?

IMO, to continue to insist on framing the issue solely in those terms – it comes down to why are Libyan lives worth more than Syrian lives or its all about money, oil, power, control – is simplistic and demonstrates an unwillingness to consider the numerous other factors that go into the decision making process, many of which I presented.

Factors that are not "political spin and other crap," but issues of strategic consideration.

At the very least, to continue to insist that "Syrian Lives are not as valuable in this situation" certainly doesn't demonstrate any level of strategic or analytical thinking that should and does determine broad foreign policy goals and objectives as well as any specific actions within that policy.

It may sound harsh and it is not a personal attack, but one does not need to be a foreign policy expert to understand that concept.

My opinion matters not. I'd rather discuss the original question. being "simple minded" and all.

(this is the point)
US analysis determines: Getting involved in Syria is not worth the potential risk. Therefore Syrian lives are not worth as much as Libyan's.

No matter how it is spun, the end result in this equation is that
Syrian Lives < Libyan Lives.

I also believe this may change drastically for any number of reasons. It is a fluid situation.

Only if you start with fuzzy math.

Cut the crap and boil it down to the simplest parameters. Without all the peripheral crap, fluff and spin.

Foreign policy boils down to getting what is best for the US. That is the bottom line, always has been always will be. Same for every other country.
There may be layers and layers of other issues and concerns, but in the end it will be about getting what is best for us. To believe otherwise is worse than being simpleminded - Its flat out stoo-pit.

I get it now.

Strategic thinking is stoo-pit, while a singular focus on only of one of many considerations (characterized as political spin and other crap) before acting is wiz-dum.

I think Happy Monkey explained it well. Syria is not worth the risk. Libya is worth the risk. Not because the lives are worth less, but because the risk in Syria is greater. If the risk was the same, then you could argue that the lives are worth less in Syria, but it's the lives that are worth the same and the risks are different.

EDIT: And this is my understanding of US policy, not what I actually think. I don't think we should be involved in either country.

I understand that glatt. But Mr. Unbalanced cannot seem to grasp that basic concept.

Syria is not worth the risk for a multitude of reasons, correct?
Therefore, the lives that are being lost in Syria are not worth getting involved.

For WHATEVER REASON(s) (not important)
it has been determined that Libya IS worth the risk.
Therefore, the lives in Libya ARE worth getting involved.

I think that is pretty much what I said about the risks being different here and here.

But thanks to you and Happy Monkey for putting it in terms that Classicman could understand.

Wait...he still doesnt really get it and is still trying to force feed the conclusion that the "lives arent worth the same" as opposed to the the risks being different, not the lives being worth less.