Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman
In addition to what they have that we want, its also the assholes like Iran and Hezbollah... point not ignored. It didn't need a reply. Did you want an "attaboy" for stating the obvious?
|
I'm still not clear where you stand. Sure, Iran and Hezbollah are assholes.
But, the question is...should the US act, with or w/o a UN mandate, recognizing that Iran and Hezbollah could make matters worse in the region?
BTW, there was "nothing it" in for the US when they were part of the NATO/UN response in Bosnia.
There was "something it" in for GHW Bush to invade Iraq after tossing them out of Kuwait, but he did not do so, because he had no mandate and understood that their could be bad unintended consquences.
added:
It comes back to this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman
This displays the fallacy of the UN. Comes back to "Why did we help in Libya and not there? Money, Oil, power, control. The poor people being slaughtered in Syria aren't getting helped because they have nothing we, the countries that could help, want.
|
IMO, it comes down to more than just having something that we want (money, oil, power, control), including having a legitimate mandate and a broad coalition of support as well as considering other strategic factors (like if/how other powers in the region might react).