Similarities and differences between the Syrian revolution and Arab Spring?
Well the Arab Spring in Tunisia and Egypt was largely peaceful. There was some violence but mostly of the riot control type and the dictators in those cases gave up power when they realized that no one supported them anymore. The new paradigm in Libya and now Syria seems to be one where protestors have to resort to violence. Both Qaddafi and Assad seem to have looked at Tunisia and Egypt and decided that the proper course is to violently crack down on protestors in their own country. This has forced the protestors to resort to violence in their own right and plunged both countries into civil wars. In Libya this resulted in the ouster of Qaddafi (although Libya faces challenges and the civil war there destabilized neighboring Mali). In Syria, the war is still going on.
Will Pakistan fall into a civil war similar to Syria?
Very, very unlikely. Pakistan is much more developed and stable than either Syria or Iraq. There is no comparison. No non-state actors can undo it by force, neither can any foreign power by merely waging a proxy war.If you take Pakistan's Armed Forces out of the equation then possibly yes. But so far our military is very stable, powerful and organized so that's not even remotely possible in the foreseeable future.For Syria, Iraq, Libya to fall into civil war - their military had to be weakened considerably (all 3 used to have formidable armies). When the center wasn't powerful enough, forces and ideas like ISIS crept in and took over with little or no resistance. Egypt still has a powerful military - and see no civil war, no ISIS. (not of that scale)Only possibility is if India, or USA demolishes all our military might - in which case terrorist elements might take over. EDIT: Even a war with India or USA is very improbable given the conflict would've potency of escalating into a nuclear war. No one wants that. Hence "Pakistan falling into a civil war similar to Syria" has negligible probability.
What were the similarities and differences between the U.S. interventions in Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, and Syria?
Similarities: All those interventions aimed for the advancement of American interestDifferences: U.S intervention failed in Vietnam, succeeded in Iraq and Libya. The outcome for Syria is not clear, but it seems the U.S is being pushed back.
What are the main causes of war in Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Libya?
If you want to know? Hah! You’d definitely have to be shocked much from it. That’s war and this is how it come to those nations.Libya: Gaddafi. He helped to establish a rich Libya. But he kept up hostility toward the West. And his oil used mostly for his benefits. Sadly, most of Libyans often live with their own good mindsets so when Libyan war happened, and after they killed Gaddafi, they turned its bullets and shot each others. That’s it. An united force against Gaddafi broken up just for few days.Syria: Assad wanted to hold his power. But under his administration he supported secularism. Syria suffered protests, he refused to leave his power chair. And other formed into battalions and led to war. Many of those battalions against Assad are not even fighting for Syria but for the other radical groups. Thanked for it? Al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda, and now ISIS. Assad stills standing there. You first fought to kill Assad but eventually you also turned on killing yourself again.Yemen: more than like a war, it is rather Iran-Saudi proxy war. Houthis vs. Hadi. All started with the Revolution and the failed transtition which Houthis are not recognized as a party. And so be it.Iraq: they have already been unstable. Thanks America. It is just the continuing of the war between Sunni and Shia sectarian inside them, and America just helped to increase Iranian influence. You know that well.Main causes are many, but you can’t really know
Why did the world allow the U.S. to ruin Iraq, Syria & Libya?
Let’s take a look at each case individually:First Iraq. Iraq may be the only one of three you mentioned that the US really deserves much blame for “ruining” as it invaded the country on a false pretext, with a vacuous plan for setting up democratic institutions in a nation full of sectarian rivalries that naturally has failed. The proximity to the 9–11 attacks meant that many worldwide sympathized with the US (although there were many notable demonstrations against the invasion).Second, Libya. Libyans followed in the example of Tunisians and Egyptians in demonstrations against long-time ruler Muammar Gaddafi, but the situation very quickly devolved into violence and civil war. There was a massive outcry against the killings of demonstrators and the threats by Gaddafi gave many observers a sense of urgency. Libyan-Americans, the UN, the EU, and the Arab League all were in favor of action (principally enforcement of a No-Fly Zone) against Gaddafi. Of course, the aerial bombardment is controversial to this day. However, Libya’s situation today mostly results from a fundamental lack of consensus among the various parties to agree to a single political structure and a common vision of the law.Finally, Syria. This followed a similar script to Libya, but the descent into civil war took longer and the violence between government and anti-government forces has been more protracted and brutal than in Libya’s case. Apart from providing arms to various parties in the middle and latter stages of the civil war, the US has not intervened as forcefully as it has in Libya and Iraq. The majority of the destruction and killings of civilians has not been by US or rebel forces, but rather by the government forces and their allies- Iranian-organized militias and Russian armed forces.