Should NATO get involved in Syria?

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.

markop2003

Is that a lot?

[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.

Palantas

Is that a lot?

edit: a quarter of the range assuming we used our older Tomahawks... the newer ones... it would be... 250 kilometers compared to 1700 fo the tomahawk. Still... those Taurus make up for it with a blistering 500 km! Oh... and the Storm Shadow and Taurus arestrictly Air-Ground... it's not launched from naval vessles, but still! Hehehhee.... ooooh good times.

As others have said it just won't happen... The Syrian army is too strong and Russia and China will veto any UN resolution that allows for armed intervention.

As others have said it just won't happen... The Syrian army is too strong and Russia and China will veto any UN resolution that allows for armed intervention.

TheMadGamer

lol UN

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. Darkman2007

[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.

Palantas

Is that a lot?

[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.

Is that a lot?

It depend on how things pan out really. If the Syrian government starts slaughtering protestors by the thousands, then yes. If not, then probably not.

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[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.

markop2003

Is that a lot?

It depend on how things pan out really. If the Syrian government starts slaughtering protestors by the thousands, then yes. If not, then probably not.

Wasdie

But, what about the children? Huh? What about them? Are not the countless children who have been maimed or murdered by gunfire sufficient reason to get involved? Can't NATO get involved on the grounds of violation of Human rights?

I don't think NATO should get involved, US has its own problems right now and should try to fix it before going to war.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

It depend on how things pan out really. If the Syrian government starts slaughtering protestors by the thousands, then yes. If not, then probably not.

But, what about the children? Huh? What about them? Are not the countless children who have been maimed or murdered by gunfire sufficient reason to get involved? Can't NATO get involved on the grounds of violation of Human rights?

[QUOTE="RexerBot"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

It depend on how things pan out really. If the Syrian government starts slaughtering protestors by the thousands, then yes. If not, then probably not.

Frame_Dragger

But, what about the children? Huh? What about them? Are not the countless children who have been maimed or murdered by gunfire sufficient reason to get involved? Can't NATO get involved on the grounds of violation of Human rights?

@Wasdie: They already are bombing their own cities... it won't change anything. NATO isn't going to take action, because the first step would essentially be a full-scale air war. Syria can burn itself to ashes before anyone intervenes.

@sSubZerOo: The US has nearly 0 oil interest in Libya, no mineral interests, and no real chance of overcoming entrenched european interests there. I'm afraid you're actually going to have to suck it up and accept a humanitarian motive to prevent a massacre in Benghazi and elsewhere.

You mean like the humanitarian aid offered in Rwanda? Darfur? Central Africa? Its hilarious that people are still trying to suggest that humanitarian aid was the main reason why they got involved in Libya..

I find it hilarious that people assume oil when it can't plausibly reconcile reality with energy policy conducive to the United States. Of course, these are the same people who believe that electric vehicles could have been competitive with ICE vehicles decades ago.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="RexerBot"]

But, what about the children? Huh? What about them? Are not the countless children who have been maimed or murdered by gunfire sufficient reason to get involved? Can't NATO get involved on the grounds of violation of Human rights?

sSubZerOo

@Wasdie: They already are bombing their own cities... it won't change anything. NATO isn't going to take action, because the first step would essentially be a full-scale air war. Syria can burn itself to ashes before anyone intervenes.

@sSubZerOo: The US has nearly 0 oil interest in Libya, no mineral interests, and no real chance of overcoming entrenched european interests there. I'm afraid you're actually going to have to suck it up and accept a humanitarian motive to prevent a massacre in Benghazi and elsewhere.

You mean like the humanitarian aid offered in Rwanda? Darfur? Central Africa? Its hilarious that people are still trying to suggest that humanitarian aid was the main reason why they got involved in Libya..

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="RexerBot"]

But, what about the children? Huh? What about them? Are not the countless children who have been maimed or murdered by gunfire sufficient reason to get involved? Can't NATO get involved on the grounds of violation of Human rights?

@Wasdie: They already are bombing their own cities... it won't change anything. NATO isn't going to take action, because the first step would essentially be a full-scale air war. Syria can burn itself to ashes before anyone intervenes.

@sSubZerOo: The US has nearly 0 oil interest in Libya, no mineral interests, and no real chance of overcoming entrenched european interests there. I'm afraid you're actually going to have to suck it up and accept a humanitarian motive to prevent a massacre in Benghazi and elsewhere.

You mean like the humanitarian aid offered in Rwanda? Darfur? Central Africa? Its hilarious that people are still trying to suggest that humanitarian aid was the main reason why they got involved in Libya..

[QUOTE="markop2003"][QUOTE="Palantas"]

Is that a lot?

Darkman2007

How many mercs do you think actually made it to and fought in Libya? I've heard different amounts, but no evidence that it was in any way significant compared to Gaddafi's regime security brigades (i.e. Mutassim's/Khamis'/Saadi's brigades and the associated militas, which nominally had 40,000+ well trained and armed men).

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="markop2003"] 162 Tomahawks were used in Libya Storm Shadow and Taurus have a much shorter range and are air to ground unlike Tomahawks which can be fired from subs and frigates too. Anyway i doubt Israel would give up the chance to invade Syria, even if it would piss off every country surrounding them.jetpower3

How many mercs do you think actually made it to and fought in Libya? I've heard different amounts, but no evidence that it was in any way significant compared to Gaddafi's regime security brigades (i.e. Mutassim's/Khamis'/Saadi's brigades and the associated militas, which nominally had 40,000+ well trained and armed men).