Attack on Syria.

[jimslip]

Saw on the news just now, NATO is considering the options of miltary force to remove the bloodthirsty maniac Assad and his regime from power.

Does anyone think that this will happen?

[andy at handiwork]

It would surprise me if NATO weren't making contingency plans about Syria; its what they do all the time. I doubt if there is any intention to have direct military intervention. However Turkey, Syria's neighbour, is a member of NATO and there may come a time in the next few weeks or months when Turkey feels threatened by events so close to home such as mass flights of refugees, incursions by Syrian forces chasing rebel elements, or simply that they feel they can no longer stand by whilst Assad slaughters his own people, when they feel direct action possibly involving fellow members of the alliance is necessary.

[jj]

Withuut US involvement it would seem extremely unlikely- and Obama really doesn't
need body-bags right now.
OTOH, the Beltway cynics might argue that a recession is the perfect time for a
fresh stimulus to the military-industrial complex....

I think the real danger is Turkey [or even Israel] acting off its own bat. They've
got long form for it, after all.
And althougn the moral case for strong intervention is unanswerable, whatever the
West does will be interpreted as an attack on Islam. Our best defence is to point
out that we would be acting where they themselves had failed to- an argument which
usually receives short shrift among those nations where the rights of the individual
have traditionally been subordinated to the 'good of society' [read: the good of
a despotic regime or maintenance of the status quo].

[bamboo]

It may turn out to be a similar situation as the libyan dust up. i.e. One or two countries being the pointy end of the stick, with monetary/logistical support from others and indifference or quiet support from most.

Turkey being involved in the air campaign i.e. flying it's aircraft over Syria has it's pro's and con's, however, I would imagine it's airfields would be used by whomever is doing it.

America, at least for the Libyan campaign, definitely played the supporting role, as opposed to what normally happens. USA leading from the front.
I can't see that changing much, during an election year.

Wouldn't it be refreshing, if the Arab League grew a pair and organised this intervention themselves.
!fight!

[frankthring]

I think it highly unlikely the UK or NATO would do anything without the
support of the Arab League which has condemned Assad anyway. The
Israelis are not interested at all JJ - they have enough on their plate with
Iran and, anyway, Syria is no immediate threat to them at present The
Yanks may be watching from the sidelines but Obama has enough to worry
about without adding Syria to the pot.

[Lizard]

The Saudi's hate Assad, and quite a lot of other middle eastern countries, what gets me is, some of these countries spend billions on defence contracts, buying the latest fighter jets, bombs, missiles etc....why don't they settle it? why is it left to America and obviously us poodles, why don't the Arabs sort out their own shit?

[jimslip]

Lizard wrote:

> The Saudi's hate Assad, and quite a lot of other middle eastern
> countries, what gets me is, some of these countries spend
> billions on defence contracts, buying the latest fighter jets,
> bombs, missiles etc....why don't they settle it? why is it left
> to America and obviously us poodles, why don't the Arabs sort
> out their own shit?
>
They don't dare to , "Sort it out" cos most of them are also running regimes based on brutality and torture of all opponents and dissenters. They simply cannot move out of this mindset and with events in Egypt you wonder if the populations themselves can move from the mindset of having to be controlled by brute force, they seem to relish and desire what they would call, "Strong leadership". Maybe NATO will have to bomb some, "Democracy" into Syria to sort things out in the end. Problem is that Syria's oil reserves are depleting so there wouldn't be much "Payback" after an invasion and so this option may well be shelved!

Funnily enough I though part of Tony Blairs job of, "Middle East Peace Envoy" was to try to "resolve conflicts" in the Middle east? Where the fuck IS the crooked little scum bag when you need him?

[Lizard]

He's helping Prescott with his bulimia.

[jimslip]

If I was a Middle Eastern despot, for a giggle, I would immediately ban (Under pain of death) the wearing of ALL moustaches AND brown trousers of ALL shades! Your people would go ape!!wink!

[bamboo]

I think their friendly neighbour, Israel, should send in peace keeping troops.
What could possibly go wrong...?