Should NATO get involved in Syria?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
That would be far too messy. A few key differences:
1. The opposition does not control any territory outright or really organized in any governmental sense.
2. There is no unified desire to take up arms against Assad.
3. Bad sectarian brew, like Iraq. Promote regime change there too heavy handedly...
4. Syria's military is surprisingly stronger, larger, and a lot more advanced than Gaddafi's. Expect casualties.
5. Allies like Russia, China, and Hezbollah in Lebanon are not ready to abandon a key friend like Syria. Therefore, no U.N. resolution, especially after Libya.
Let's say that NATO did get involved and used only air support. Wouldn't that eliminate the chance for casualties on their end?That would be too messy. A few key differences:
1. The opposition does not control any territory or really organized in any governmental sense.
2. There is no unified desire to take up arms against Assad.
3. Bad sectarian brew, like Iraq. Promote regime change there too heavy handedly...
4. Syria's military is surprisingly stronger, larger, and a lot more advanced than Gaddafi's. Expect casualties.
5. Allies like Russia, China, and Hezbollah in Lebanon are not ready to abandon a key friend like Syria. Therefore, no U.N. resolution, especially after Libya.
jetpower3
[QUOTE="jetpower3"]Let's say that NATO did get involved and used only air support. Wouldn't that eliminate the chance for casualties on their end?That would be too messy. A few key differences:
1. The opposition does not control any territory or really organized in any governmental sense.
2. There is no unified desire to take up arms against Assad.
3. Bad sectarian brew, like Iraq. Promote regime change there too heavy handedly...
4. Syria's military is surprisingly stronger, larger, and a lot more advanced than Gaddafi's. Expect casualties.
5. Allies like Russia, China, and Hezbollah in Lebanon are not ready to abandon a key friend like Syria. Therefore, no U.N. resolution, especially after Libya.
RexerBot
Anti-air defenses would likely be a problem. NATO was very lucky to only lose a single drone to enemy fire in Libya. Even a few dead or captured pilots can be a death knell to public support for any such action.
Let's say that NATO did get involved and used only air support. Wouldn't that eliminate the chance for casualties on their end?[QUOTE="RexerBot"][QUOTE="jetpower3"]
That would be too messy. A few key differences:
1. The opposition does not control any territory or really organized in any governmental sense.
2. There is no unified desire to take up arms against Assad.
3. Bad sectarian brew, like Iraq. Promote regime change there too heavy handedly...
4. Syria's military is surprisingly stronger, larger, and a lot more advanced than Gaddafi's. Expect casualties.
5. Allies like Russia, China, and Hezbollah in Lebanon are not ready to abandon a key friend like Syria. Therefore, no U.N. resolution, especially after Libya.
jetpower3
Anti-air defenses would likely be a problem. NATO was very lucky to only lose a single drone to enemy fire in Libya. Even a few dead or captured pilots can be a death knell to public support for any such action.
Does Syria have a comparable air force to that of countries which comprise NATO? Also, aren't the fighter jets used by NATO forces advanced enough to evade the surface-to-air missiles used by Syria? I would imagine that Syria's technology isn't as advanced as that of the West.[QUOTE="jetpower3"][QUOTE="RexerBot"] Let's say that NATO did get involved and used only air support. Wouldn't that eliminate the chance for casualties on their end?RexerBot
Anti-air defenses would likely be a problem. NATO was very lucky to only lose a single drone to enemy fire in Libya. Even a few dead or captured pilots can be a death knell to public support for any such action.
Does Syria have a comparable air force to that of countries which comprise NATO? Also, aren't the fighter jets used by NATO forces advanced enough to evade the surface-to-air missiles used by Syria? I would imagine that Syria's technology isn't as advanced as that of the West.No, but that's not really the challenge. NATO seems to be relatively good at minimizing casualties in an air war, but you can never completely eliminate the possibility of material and human losses. Add that to there being likely pressure from the public of making sure there are absolutely no losses, and the prospects of another months long campaign (at least) flying with NATO countries and their civilian population are zilch, especially with military spending and political fallout from Iraq/Afghanistan already on everyone's mind and in the absence of any clear objectives and plans to unseat Assad from the Syrian opposition.
Syria has a, relatively, very competent armed forces that put a strong emphasis on AA and AT capabilities (due to it's experience with a nearby enemy western military- Israel), combined with the complete support of the most effective guerrilla organization in the world and Iran.
Supposedly, it also has the largest stockpile of biological WMDs in the middle-east.
Syria also has a powerful getaway- by instigating a war with Israel it can rally the public opinion of the Muslim/Arab world in Assad's favour and portray the rebels as traitors to the cause, or just consolidate the rebels in favour of the authorities. The slogan "Assad send your forces to the [israeli border] and not against us" is already very common.
Tl;dr- I think It would be a very very bad idea.
While I like democracy and hate to see the rebels get squashed (which is most likely going to happen), it would be impossible to get an UN resolution to due so because China and Russia will veto it. Even if it does pass, it would still be a bad idea.
No, and there is no chance it will. Well... that was a rich and full discussion. :P
Syria is more difficult as it's still very much in the protest stage rather than revolution, there isn't really a cohesive side to support. Also its closeness to Iran could cause issues.markop2003Plus it would be much more difficult to do an effective no-fly zone. The Syrias have mech more AA defenses than Libya did, and unlike Libya Syria doesn't have vast amounts of desrts and is more urban, which creates problems due to civilian dangers.
Do you think NATO should provide as much support to Syrian protesters as they did to the Libyan rebels? I ask because Iv'e read of numerous stories in which Syrian children have been indiscriminately shot or tortured by Syrian authorities. I personally think that what Syria's government is doing to their people is much worse than what Gaddafi was doing to the rebels (I actually don't think Gaddafi was evil at all, but I'll save that for another topic). So, what's your opinion?RexerBot
nope nato's founding documents and their backbone and foundation dont allow them to get involved in other countries problems.. until it concerns them. tll then they should mind their own buisness.
No. Just no.
Plus it would be much more difficult to do an effective no-fly zone. The Syrias have mech more AA defenses than Libya did, and unlike Libya Syria doesn't have vast amounts of desrts and is more urban, which creates problems due to civilian dangers. NATO has a history of not being all that bothered about civilians... though they have been more restrained in Libya due to the issues with Iraq. AA dosn't really effect cruise missiles, it is possible to shoot them down but the odds are against you; also there's the simple fact that NATO probably has a larger stock pile of cruise missiles than Syria does of relevant AA munitions.[QUOTE="markop2003"]Syria is more difficult as it's still very much in the protest stage rather than revolution, there isn't really a cohesive side to support. Also its closeness to Iran could cause issues.sherman-tank1
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]Personally I can live with the Syrians eating each other alive... maybe it will give Lebanon a chance at actually becoming something like an independent nation.RexerBotSo, you're okay with armed troops shooting innocent children? It isn't what I'd want for the world, but I don't see that essentially declaring an air-war on Syria would be a better option. Children die all the time from utterly preventable conditions such as starvation where we could intervene relatively cheaply and efficiently, yet we seem OK with that. I'm unclear as to why we should be involving ourselves in Syrian politics, however bloody it may become which would not be cheap or efficient in ANY sense. Beyond that, if you want my most basic answer... yeah, I'm okay with armed troops shooting innocent children as long as it's not threatening the stability of a country I care about, or harming people I know and care about.
looks like NATO or spacifically European Union is replacing USA as world police nowadays...
Syria is more difficult as it's still very much in the protest stage rather than revolution, there isn't really a cohesive side to support. Also its closeness to Iran could cause issues.markop2003Plus it would be much more difficult to do an effective no-fly zone. The Syrias have mech more AA defenses than Libya did, and unlike Libya Syria doesn't have vast amounts of desrts and is more urban, which creates problems due to civilian dangers. NATO has a history of not being all that bothered about civilians... though they have been more restrained in Libya due to the issues with Iraq. AA dosn't really effect cruise missiles, it is possible to shoot them down but the odds are against you; also there's the simple fact that NATO probably has a larger stock pile of cruise missiles than Syria does of relevant AA munitions. We just blew 1/5 of our naval stockpile of Tomahawks on Libya... there is no "NATO" stockpile beyond the individual countries so that means we'e down to 4/ths capacity. As for not caring about civilians, that simply shows a profound ignorance of what can be done with carpet bombing as opposed to the limited deaths caused by expensive precision attacks. It's still precision high explosives however, so yeah, civilians die.
NATO couldn't have actually operated in Libya without the USA and UK (partnered) firing off 110 Tomahawks, and then subsequent US support with GPS, AWACS, and AR strikes. There's a reason that Europe is constructing its own GPS so they can at least have an illusion of indipendance from US tech to undertake military operations.looks like NATO or spacifically European Union is replacing USA as world police nowadays...
punkpunker
[QUOTE="punkpunker"]NATO couldn't have actually operated in Libya without the USA and UK (partnered) firing off 110 Tomahawks, and then subsequent US support with GPS, AWACS, and AR strikes. There's a reason that Europe is constructing its own GPS so they can at least have an illusion of indipendance from US tech to undertake military operations.looks like NATO or spacifically European Union is replacing USA as world police nowadays...
Frame_Dragger
Well they could have, it just would have been considerably more risky and likely more damaging to the civilian population.
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="punkpunker"]
looks like NATO or spacifically European Union is replacing USA as world police nowadays...
NATO couldn't have actually operated in Libya without the USA and UK (partnered) firing off 110 Tomahawks, and then subsequent US support with GPS, AWACS, and AR strikes. There's a reason that Europe is constructing its own GPS so they can at least have an illusion of indipendance from US tech to undertake military operations.Well they could have, it just would have been considerably more risky and likely more damaging to the civilian population.
Well, that is considerabely more accurate than my statement, but I like to thinjk that NATO sans the US would be smart enough to not take that risk.Syria has a, relatively, very competent armed forces that put a strong emphasis on AA and AT capabilities (due to it's experience with a nearby enemy western military- Israel), combined with the complete support of the most effective guerrilla organization in the world and Iran.
Supposedly, it also has the largest stockpile of biological WMDs in the middle-east.
Syria also has a powerful getaway- by instigating a war with Israel it can rally the public opinion of the Muslim/Arab world in Assad's favour and portray the rebels as traitors to the cause, or just consolidate the rebels in favour of the authorities. The slogan "Assad send your forces to the [israeli border] and not against us" is already very common.
Tl;dr- I think It would be a very very bad idea.
grape_of_wrath
I came to say pretty much this, Syria was much smarter in their arms build up than Saddam was, While they DO still have tons of Tanks, IFVs, and other components, they also have tons of AT equipment and launchers, they also have a crazy amount of AA, thousands of towed and mobile units, over 4000 MANPADS, and more.
And not only that, but their 4th Military branch after the Army, Navy, and Air Force, Marines? a National Guard maybe? No, It's the "Air Defense Force" 40,000 strong, dedicated to the sole purpose of Anti-Air Capabilities. They operate around hundreds of Mobile AA missile platforms. They know well that the most significant threat would come from the Air.
And yes, they do have SCUD, and other tactical ballistic missile systems. combine all that with everything else they have, and they have their bases covered, would be a force to be reckoned with if we chose to fight them.
Needless to mention, their Allies in the region, including Iran, would not take too kindly to an invasion of Syria.
That, plus their relations with Russia, and I think China, assures that we won't go there. It wouldn't be the same as Iraq and Libya, nor as simple( if you can call them that)
[QUOTE="grape_of_wrath"]
Syria has a, relatively, very competent armed forces that put a strong emphasis on AA and AT capabilities (due to it's experience with a nearby enemy western military- Israel), combined with the complete support of the most effective guerrilla organization in the world and Iran.
Supposedly, it also has the largest stockpile of biological WMDs in the middle-east.
Syria also has a powerful getaway- by instigating a war with Israel it can rally the public opinion of the Muslim/Arab world in Assad's favour and portray the rebels as traitors to the cause, or just consolidate the rebels in favour of the authorities. The slogan "Assad send your forces to the [israeli border] and not against us" is already very common.
Tl;dr- I think It would be a very very bad idea.
SamusFreak
I came to say pretty much this, Syria was much smarter in their arms build up than Saddam was, While they DO still have tons of Tanks, IFVs, and other components, they also have tons of AT equipment and launchers, they also have a crazy amount of AA, thousands of towed and mobile units, over 4000 MANPADS, and more.
And not only that, but their 4th Military branch after the Army, Navy, and Air Force, Marines? a National Guard maybe? No, It's the "Air Defense Force" 40,000 strong, dedicated to the sole purpose of Anti-Air Capabilities. They operate around hundreds of Mobile AA missile platforms. They know well that the most significant threat would come from the Air.
And yes, they do have SCUD, and other tactical ballistic missile systems. combine all that with everything else they have, and they have their bases covered, would be a force to be reckoned with if we chose to fight them.
Needless to mention, their Allies in the region, including Iran, would not take too kindly to an invasion of Syria.
That, plus their relations with Russia, and I think China, assures that we won't go there. It wouldn't be the same as Iraq and Libya, nor as simple( if you can call them that)
As such, the most viable course of action would probably just let the Syrian opposition undermine the system from within. It may take years, maybe even decades, and there are no guarantees of success, but if they believe in the cause that strongly, get organized, and progress in other Arab Spring countries is good, then they might just stand a fighting chance (however they choose to fight -whether with weapons, mass protest action, or both). Remember this is a country ruled under the same family for over 50 years. Of course Assad will not go down easily. But even mighty, seemingly impregnable empires and dynasties can be decisively defeated.
[QUOTE="jetpower3"]
As such, the most viable course of action would probably just let the Syrian opposition undermine the system from within. It may take years, maybe even decades, and there are no guarantees of success, but if they believe in the cause that strongly, get organized, and progress in other Arab Spring countries is good, then they might just stand a fighting chance (however they choose to fight -whether with weapons, mass protest action, or both). Remember this is a country ruled under the same family for over 50 years. Of course Assad will not go down easily. But even mighty, seemingly impregnable empires and dynasties can be decisively defeated.
Absolutely, it's deffinantly something we should not interfere with. That Region in whole, we just need to leave well enough alone.
looks like NATO or spacifically European Union is replacing USA as world police nowadays...
punkpunker
Not really. The europeans ran out of munitions a few weeks in to the Libya effort and if it wasn't for the evil, warmonger, spend-their-money-on-defense-instead-of-food, ugly ass Americans giving them some of our bombs to drop, they would have been out of business back in May.
Somehow I doubt any of the european govts have bothered to spend any of their money re-stocking their inventories. Why should they when they can always count on their Ol Uncle Sam to ride to their rescue.
I think it would be best if NATO stayed out of this one. Uncle Sam is kinda tired of being involved in the middle-east and the rest of NATO wouldn't have a prayer without him.
Beyond using the place as a weapon systems testing environment, no.
intervene how? all i think should happen is world wide sanctions on Syria. And at most a no fly zone. If a war does break out I'm pretty screwed as yet another wave of refugees would come to Jordan raising demand and prices of... everything. Thanks to an incompetent government. So no, NATO getting directly involved is not a good idea for the stability and economy of the region. lol Jordan makes its living off of other countries disasters. its so true. Syrians are already taking refuge here as were some Libyans actually. So the time line goes: Chechens and other groups running from the Soviet Union, Palestinians from Isreal, Lebonese from the civil war and isreal, Iraqi's from the US, and recently Libyans and Syrians. ...wonder if any Yemini's are on thier way. :/mayceVThe first step in establishing a NFZ is to destroy all AA capabilities... in Syria that would mean waging all-out war. The Syrians are on their own, period.
[QUOTE="mayceV"]intervene how? all i think should happen is world wide sanctions on Syria. And at most a no fly zone. If a war does break out I'm pretty screwed as yet another wave of refugees would come to Jordan raising demand and prices of... everything. Thanks to an incompetent government. So no, NATO getting directly involved is not a good idea for the stability and economy of the region. lol Jordan makes its living off of other countries disasters. its so true. Syrians are already taking refuge here as were some Libyans actually. So the time line goes: Chechens and other groups running from the Soviet Union, Palestinians from Isreal, Lebonese from the civil war and isreal, Iraqi's from the US, and recently Libyans and Syrians. ...wonder if any Yemini's are on thier way. :/Frame_DraggerThe first step in establishing a NFZ is to destroy all AA capabilities... in Syria that would mean waging all-out war. The Syrians are on their own, period. eh, i realized that. Problem is that refugees are already beggining to pile up in camps here. Not that I want them to go back but seeing that its a lose lose situation in terms of them comming or not I think that internal fragmentation of the army hits 20%( syria's army is huge though 300,000 strong trained for 6 months under the toughest conditions (10% of recruits die in training)) there'll be a armed rebelion. Lol The more I think about it the more I realize that at this rate the Jordanians will be a minority in Jordan.
intervening in Syria would be alot more complicated than in Libya.
Gaddafi was supported by Mercenaries, alot of them , and I wouldn't be surprised if one of the reasons he fell relatively quickly was because he simply ran out of money to pay them
Syria has a relatively capable military and the Assad regime is overall more stable.
the best the west can do (other than full intervention) , is military and financial aid to any group fighting the regime.
as for Assad starting trouble with Israel , either directly or through Hezbollah simply to gain public support, its a possiblity, though frankly that could threaten his regime too , even if he survives such a war, his military and institutions will be weaker once attention goes back to him
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="mayceV"]intervene how? all i think should happen is world wide sanctions on Syria. And at most a no fly zone. If a war does break out I'm pretty screwed as yet another wave of refugees would come to Jordan raising demand and prices of... everything. Thanks to an incompetent government. So no, NATO getting directly involved is not a good idea for the stability and economy of the region. lol Jordan makes its living off of other countries disasters. its so true. Syrians are already taking refuge here as were some Libyans actually. So the time line goes: Chechens and other groups running from the Soviet Union, Palestinians from Isreal, Lebonese from the civil war and isreal, Iraqi's from the US, and recently Libyans and Syrians. ...wonder if any Yemini's are on thier way. :/mayceVThe first step in establishing a NFZ is to destroy all AA capabilities... in Syria that would mean waging all-out war. The Syrians are on their own, period. eh, i realized that. Problem is that refugees are already beggining to pile up in camps here. Not that I want them to go back but seeing that its a lose lose situation in terms of them comming or not I think that internal fragmentation of the army hits 20%( syria's army is huge though 300,000 strong trained for 6 months under the toughest conditions (10% of recruits die in training)) there'll be a armed rebelion. Lol The more I think about it the more I realize that at this rate the Jordanians will be a minority in Jordan. You may be right about Jordan, but Jordan has always been a good neighbour to other ME countries, and helped relocate people in need. If anyone can handle this, it's Jordan. As for rebellion, a year ago I would have thought it was impossible... now... I don't know. It all comes down to how willing the Syrian military is to kill civilians, because as far as I can see, the civilians are willing to die. @Darkman2007: I agree with your assessments... very astute.
[QUOTE="mayceV"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] The first step in establishing a NFZ is to destroy all AA capabilities... in Syria that would mean waging all-out war. The Syrians are on their own, period.Frame_Draggereh, i realized that. Problem is that refugees are already beggining to pile up in camps here. Not that I want them to go back but seeing that its a lose lose situation in terms of them comming or not I think that internal fragmentation of the army hits 20%( syria's army is huge though 300,000 strong trained for 6 months under the toughest conditions (10% of recruits die in training)) there'll be a armed rebelion. Lol The more I think about it the more I realize that at this rate the Jordanians will be a minority in Jordan. You may be right about Jordan, but Jordan has always been a good neighbour to other ME countries, and helped relocate people in need. If anyone can handle this, it's Jordan. As for rebellion, a year ago I would have thought it was impossible... now... I don't know. It all comes down to how willing the Syrian military is to kill civilians, because as far as I can see, the civilians are willing to die. @Darkman2007: I agree with your assessments... very astute. why do I sense a hint of sarcasm in your compliment of my argument :P ? as for Jordan , I think the King (who belongs to the more beduin like Jordanians) would not want more refugees. as it is now, Jordanians are a minority in that country, in fact, some in Israel think that part of why he wants a peace agreement so much (other than Arab Nationalism , since lets face it, its always been a tool) is because he is afraid Israel will try to topple his regime and set up a Palestinian state in Jordan (which was happening in 1970) yes the Middle East is the home of conspiracy theories :P
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="mayceV"] eh, i realized that. Problem is that refugees are already beggining to pile up in camps here. Not that I want them to go back but seeing that its a lose lose situation in terms of them comming or not I think that internal fragmentation of the army hits 20%( syria's army is huge though 300,000 strong trained for 6 months under the toughest conditions (10% of recruits die in training)) there'll be a armed rebelion. Lol The more I think about it the more I realize that at this rate the Jordanians will be a minority in Jordan. Darkman2007You may be right about Jordan, but Jordan has always been a good neighbour to other ME countries, and helped relocate people in need. If anyone can handle this, it's Jordan. As for rebellion, a year ago I would have thought it was impossible... now... I don't know. It all comes down to how willing the Syrian military is to kill civilians, because as far as I can see, the civilians are willing to die. @Darkman2007: I agree with your assessments... very astute. why do I sense a hint of sarcasm in your compliment of my argument :P ? as for Jordan , I think the King (who belongs to the more beduin like Jordanians) would not want more refugees. as it is now, Jordanians are a minority in that country, in fact, some in Israel think that part of why he wants a peace agreement so much (other than Arab Nationalism , since lets face it, its always been a tool) is because he is afraid Israel will try to topple his regime and set up a Palestinian state in Jordan (which was happening in 1970) yes the Middle East is the home of conspiracy theories :P No Darkman, I wasn't being in the least sarcastic, I meant what I said.
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] You may be right about Jordan, but Jordan has always been a good neighbour to other ME countries, and helped relocate people in need. If anyone can handle this, it's Jordan. As for rebellion, a year ago I would have thought it was impossible... now... I don't know. It all comes down to how willing the Syrian military is to kill civilians, because as far as I can see, the civilians are willing to die. @Darkman2007: I agree with your assessments... very astute.Frame_Draggerwhy do I sense a hint of sarcasm in your compliment of my argument :P ? as for Jordan , I think the King (who belongs to the more beduin like Jordanians) would not want more refugees. as it is now, Jordanians are a minority in that country, in fact, some in Israel think that part of why he wants a peace agreement so much (other than Arab Nationalism , since lets face it, its always been a tool) is because he is afraid Israel will try to topple his regime and set up a Palestinian state in Jordan (which was happening in 1970) yes the Middle East is the home of conspiracy theories :P No Darkman, I wasn't being in the least sarcastic, I meant what I said. fair enough then , I always get the feeling people disagree with me , call it one part paranoia and one part pessimism on my part :P
[QUOTE="markop2003"][QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]Plus it would be much more difficult to do an effective no-fly zone. The Syrias have mech more AA defenses than Libya did, and unlike Libya Syria doesn't have vast amounts of desrts and is more urban, which creates problems due to civilian dangers.NATO has a history of not being all that bothered about civilians... though they have been more restrained in Libya due to the issues with Iraq. AA dosn't really effect cruise missiles, it is possible to shoot them down but the odds are against you; also there's the simple fact that NATO probably has a larger stock pile of cruise missiles than Syria does of relevant AA munitions. We just blew 1/5 of our naval stockpile of Tomahawks on Libya... there is no "NATO" stockpile beyond the individual countries so that means we'e down to 4/ths capacity. As for not caring about civilians, that simply shows a profound ignorance of what can be done with carpet bombing as opposed to the limited deaths caused by expensive precision attacks. It's still precision high explosives however, so yeah, civilians die. Germany has 600 Taurus missiles and wasn't involved at all in Libya, also the EU has over 1000 Storm Shadow cruise missiles. Also i'm sure Israel would be more than happy to commit its forces.Frame_Dragger
We just blew 1/5 of our naval stockpile of Tomahawks on Libya... there is no "NATO" stockpile beyond the individual countries so that means we'e down to 4/ths capacity. As for not caring about civilians, that simply shows a profound ignorance of what can be done with carpet bombing as opposed to the limited deaths caused by expensive precision attacks. It's still precision high explosives however, so yeah, civilians die. Germany has 600 Taurus missiles and wasn't involved at all in Libya, also the EU has over 1000 Storm Shadow cruise missiles. Also i'm sure Israel would be more than happy to commit its forces. there is no reason for Israel to get involved in any NATO strike on Syria. there is simply no strategic or political benefits to it. actually, in some ways, Israel would rather keep Assad in power, not because we like him (we certainly don't, he is the head of an enemy state) , but lets assume that Assad falls , who rules in his place? Islamists like th Muslim Brotherhood which is quite popular in Egypt (and some extent in Jordan) , or Tunisia? or maybe even worse , with Hezbollah establishing a greater influence in the country, and the last thing I want, is Hezbollah in charge of the alleged WMDs Syria has. with Assad, at least you can have a peace treaty, with Islamists you can't, since most of them simply do not want me to exist. I do not like Assad, but as far as cold , rational politics concerning Israel's national interests, there is no real benefit gained from toppling Assad. as for NATO , countries wil only embark on an attack if their national interests say so and the conditions allow it,[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="markop2003"] NATO has a history of not being all that bothered about civilians... though they have been more restrained in Libya due to the issues with Iraq. AA dosn't really effect cruise missiles, it is possible to shoot them down but the odds are against you; also there's the simple fact that NATO probably has a larger stock pile of cruise missiles than Syria does of relevant AA munitions.markop2003
We just blew 1/5 of our naval stockpile of Tomahawks on Libya... there is no "NATO" stockpile beyond the individual countries so that means we're down to 4/ths capacity. As for not caring about civilians, that simply shows a profound ignorance of what can be done with carpet bombing as opposed to the limited deaths caused by expensive precision attacks. It's still precision high explosives however, so yeah, civilians die. Germany has 600 Taurus missiles and wasn't involved at all in Libya, also the EU has over 1000 Storm Shadow cruise missiles. Also i'm sure Israel would be more than happy to commit its forces. Those stockpiles represent just that.... their stockpiles... which are not easily replenished in the same way that the US can manufacture Tomahawks and the like. In either case, to make the most of those missiles they actually require the US military coordinating with GPS and other C&C interface. Again... there's a reason why the EU is spending money it doesn't have on a GPS clone... they want to have some military independance. As for Israel, I can't imagine they would borrow that kind of trouble when it woluld only be repaid in blood. Beyond that, as Darkman says, the certainty and stability of Assad beats something like Iran installing a government that wants to get feisty.[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="markop2003"] NATO has a history of not being all that bothered about civilians... though they have been more restrained in Libya due to the issues with Iraq. AA dosn't really effect cruise missiles, it is possible to shoot them down but the odds are against you; also there's the simple fact that NATO probably has a larger stock pile of cruise missiles than Syria does of relevant AA munitions.markop2003
[QUOTE="markop2003"]Germany has 600 Taurus missiles and wasn't involved at all in Libya, also the EU has over 1000 Storm Shadow cruise missiles. Also i'm sure Israel would be more than happy to commit its forces. Those stockpiles represent just that.... their stockpiles... which are not easily replenished in the same way that the US can manufacture Tomahawks and the like. In either case, to make the most of those missiles they actually require the US military coordinating with GPS and other C&C interface. Again... there's a reason why the EU is spending money it doesn't have on a GPS clone... they want to have some military independance. As for Israel, I can't imagine they would borrow that kind of trouble when it woluld only be repaid in blood. Beyond that, as Darkman says, the certainty and stability of Assad beats something like Iran installing a government that wants to get feisty. the only time I can think of that NATO or anybody else will actively support the protest movements, is when Assad would be close to finished, just to get on the good side of whoever overthrows him. actually quite similar to what happend with Mubarak, the west was relatively quiet during the protests, until it started to seem like Mubarak was getting pushed into a corner. of course, Assad knows he would need an enemy from the outside to temporarily strengthen him , in the hope that people forget , hence why Syria and Hezbollah have been making some rather blantant threats against Israel (including a rather grandiose plan by Hezbollah to take over northen Israel, which is rather silly)[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] We just blew 1/5 of our naval stockpile of Tomahawks on Libya... there is no "NATO" stockpile beyond the individual countries so that means we're down to 4/ths capacity. As for not caring about civilians, that simply shows a profound ignorance of what can be done with carpet bombing as opposed to the limited deaths caused by expensive precision attacks. It's still precision high explosives however, so yeah, civilians die. Frame_Dragger
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="markop2003"] Germany has 600 Taurus missiles and wasn't involved at all in Libya, also the EU has over 1000 Storm Shadow cruise missiles. Also i'm sure Israel would be more than happy to commit its forces.Those stockpiles represent just that.... their stockpiles... which are not easily replenished in the same way that the US can manufacture Tomahawks and the like. In either case, to make the most of those missiles they actually require the US military coordinating with GPS and other C&C interface. Again... there's a reason why the EU is spending money it doesn't have on a GPS clone... they want to have some military independance. As for Israel, I can't imagine they would borrow that kind of trouble when it woluld only be repaid in blood. Beyond that, as Darkman says, the certainty and stability of Assad beats something like Iran installing a government that wants to get feisty. the only time I can think of that NATO or anybody else will actively support the protest movements, is when Assad would be close to finished, just to get on the good side of whoever overthrows him. actually quite similar to what happend with Mubarak, the west was relatively quiet during the protests, until it started to seem like Mubarak was getting pushed into a corner. of course, Assad knows he would need an enemy from the outside to temporarily strengthen him , in the hope that people forget , hence why Syria and Hezbollah have been making some rather blantant threats against Israel (including a rather grandiose plan by Hezbollah to take over northen Israel, which is rather silly) True... I'd be concerned that in teh case of Assad, movement by the US would galvanize loyalist forces almost immidiately. In the case of Mubarak, I think we were too timid, and should have expressed greater support for the Egyptian people earlier.Darkman2007
the only time I can think of that NATO or anybody else will actively support the protest movements, is when Assad would be close to finished, just to get on the good side of whoever overthrows him. actually quite similar to what happend with Mubarak, the west was relatively quiet during the protests, until it started to seem like Mubarak was getting pushed into a corner. of course, Assad knows he would need an enemy from the outside to temporarily strengthen him , in the hope that people forget , hence why Syria and Hezbollah have been making some rather blantant threats against Israel (including a rather grandiose plan by Hezbollah to take over northen Israel, which is rather silly) True... I'd be concerned that in teh case of Assad, movement by the US would galvanize loyalist forces almost immidiately. In the case of Mubarak, I think we were too timid, and should have expressed greater support for the Egyptian people earlier. in relation to Mubarak , again its a dilemma of morals vs politics. yes, on a moral basis, one should support the protesters since many had legitimate demands, on the other hand, who comes to power instead? the Muslim Brotherhood who are in alot of ways , Hamas in a suit (their TV channel has some stuff which would be at home on a Nazi newspaper). Assad is facing a dilemma, if he doesn't attack Israel or try to provoke a NATO attack , his regime will be eroded from within , if he attacks or is attacked, he gets some support, but frankly he would lose that war, either to Israel or NATO , which would just add another complaint to the protesters[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] Those stockpiles represent just that.... their stockpiles... which are not easily replenished in the same way that the US can manufacture Tomahawks and the like. In either case, to make the most of those missiles they actually require the US military coordinating with GPS and other C&C interface. Again... there's a reason why the EU is spending money it doesn't have on a GPS clone... they want to have some military independance. As for Israel, I can't imagine they would borrow that kind of trouble when it woluld only be repaid in blood. Beyond that, as Darkman says, the certainty and stability of Assad beats something like Iran installing a government that wants to get feisty.Frame_Dragger
personally i think they should,but then again i don't expect the NATO to get involved in a war that doesn't serve it's interests,it's not a charity or something.
the only time I can think of that NATO or anybody else will actively support the protest movements, is when Assad would be close to finished, just to get on the good side of whoever overthrows him. actually quite similar to what happend with Mubarak, the west was relatively quiet during the protests, until it started to seem like Mubarak was getting pushed into a corner. of course, Assad knows he would need an enemy from the outside to temporarily strengthen him , in the hope that people forget , hence why Syria and Hezbollah have been making some rather blantant threats against Israel (including a rather grandiose plan by Hezbollah to take over northen Israel, which is rather silly)Darkman2007True... I'd be concerned that in teh case of Assad, movement by the US would galvanize loyalist forces almost immidiately. In the case of Mubarak, I think we were too timid, and should have expressed greater support for the Egyptian people earlier. in relation to Mubarak , again its a dilemma of morals vs politics. yes, on a moral basis, one should support the protesters since many had legitimate demands, on the other hand, who comes to power instead? the Muslim Brotherhood who are in alot of ways , Hamas in a suit (their TV channel has some stuff which would be at home on a Nazi newspaper). Assad is facing a dilemma, if he doesn't attack Israel or try to provoke a NATO attack , his regime will be eroded from within , if he attacks or is attacked, he gets some support, but frankly he would lose that war, either to Israel or NATO , which would just add another complaint to the protesters If I were Assad... I'd run. Of course, if I'd run, then I would never be like him in the first place. That man loves power more than life I think.
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] True... I'd be concerned that in teh case of Assad, movement by the US would galvanize loyalist forces almost immidiately. In the case of Mubarak, I think we were too timid, and should have expressed greater support for the Egyptian people earlier.in relation to Mubarak , again its a dilemma of morals vs politics. yes, on a moral basis, one should support the protesters since many had legitimate demands, on the other hand, who comes to power instead? the Muslim Brotherhood who are in alot of ways , Hamas in a suit (their TV channel has some stuff which would be at home on a Nazi newspaper). Assad is facing a dilemma, if he doesn't attack Israel or try to provoke a NATO attack , his regime will be eroded from within , if he attacks or is attacked, he gets some support, but frankly he would lose that war, either to Israel or NATO , which would just add another complaint to the protesters If I were Assad... I'd run. Of course, if I'd run, then I would never be like him in the first place. That man loves power more than life I think.Frame_Dragger
Assad actually has a somewhat softer reputation than his father, who was frankly the old military dictator type (Bashar is adoctor by profession funny enough) compared to what his Dad did in Hama during the protests there in the 1980s at any rate, Im not sure he is ruthless compared to some.
and the Assad familiy has been in charge since the very early 70s, that kind of regime doesn't go away easily, he has power and he won't relinquish it of course. though if he does end up running away, expect to see him in Iran
No.Victorious_FizeMost detailed answer this entire thread.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment