The CIA has a number of scenarios, with regard to the Middle East (oil supply surety).
According to one conversation I had some decades ago, with one US Embassy individual?
The pentagon has one worst case scenario, of dropping a few neutron bombs, (which they have) over the Middle East, on friend and foe alike, turning all of it into a virtual sea of volcanic glass.
Without destroying any of the infrastructure?
These things, exploded at considerable height, pump out enormous heat and electromagnetic pulses, that basically cripple, (fry) all electronic components.
They also pump out enough rads to kill every living thing in the killing zone, in just days, even those sheltering at conventional shell safe depth.
The nature of the radiation gives irradiated ground zero a very short half life; making it safe to return in around six months, and purloin all of the oil.
Now, it might seem naive to plump for the elimination of the mass murdering Assad regime, with say a carefully planned surgical strike! And that proposition painted as a very possible outcome, by a demonstration, say on several very important/critical military targets, might just bring the Assad regime to the negotiating table?
Moreover, that very outcome would be far less evil, than a worse case scenario outcome, or indeed, the continuing slaughter of unarmed non combatant Syrian civilians, men, women and children!
The Russians won't interfere, with a limited short sharp surgical strike, given they risk plunging the whole world into nuclear holocaust.
But particularly, if Yanks can outsource that task to one or more of their compliant Middle East allies, operating with impunity, under the protection of the US defense umbrella!
Rhrosty.

LEGO, you astonish me, as do so many others on this thread.

Words come to mind like "it is illogical to keep doing the same thing, while expecting (or hoping for) a different outcome".

What may have been if Muammar Gaddafi and Hosni Mubarak had simply given in to the will of the people, without any need for bloodshed?
And, what then if Bashar al-Assad had followed such a lead?
Where might we now be if people did not insist on repeating the same folly, over and over, while expecting a different outcome and a 'better' world to miraculously materialize in consequence?

There is gross disparity in opportunity and capacity between nations and individuals, but no-one can or should expect absolute equality, just a 'fair go' and reasonable opportunity to achieve stability, security and peaceful coexistence with one's neighbours.

Nation States exist, and have a right to reasonable autonomy within a stable and equitable 'world' framework. What they don't have is a right to impose their will on other states (or their own people) by force or by blackmail - and this includes the 'West', the Security Council, and the 'world powers', US, UK etc.

But, we don't yet have a 'stable' and 'equitable' world 'framework' - arguably because this is not seen to be in the best interests of the 'bullies' of this world, because we simply don't trust each other, and because sharing the world's resources and opportunities equitably may be seen as too difficult or as foolish and against self-interest.
The 'haves' remain greedy for more, and the 'have-nots' remain unimpressed with the disparity.

Progress is built on trade, and the road to stability and security will only be built on 'fair trade' and honest dealings.
Time for a new vision of what may be, to learn from past mistakes, and to forge a new, honest and open contract with all the world's nations for the benefit of all human existence, and for the planet.

Hopefully, with equity in trade and opportunity, religious and cultural 'differences' may then become substantially inconsequential.

Saltpetre, your comment stands head and shoulders above the rest of the plebs whose minds are filled with greed and self-delusions.

You are someone valuable, a thinker, a philosopher even.

I tips me' hat to you!

Shadow Minister says "the evidence is very clear" with regard to the assertion that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons on civilians. While it seems clear that chemical weapons were used, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that it was the regime that used them.
If you have this evidence then please share it with the rest of us. And I I mean more than a bald assertion from some US government official. I want to know what the actual evidence is they base this opinion on.

LEGO says "The Whabbis, Alawites, Saudis, Hashemites, Sunnis, Shiites, Iranians, Hezbollah, PLO, and Muslim Brotherhood are all Muslims who all hate the West."
What statistics or other evidence do you have to back up this extraordinary claim?

While I'm sure that none of the groups you mention wish to be ruled by the West, nor do we wish to be ruled by them. That doesn't mean we hate them and nor does it mean they hate us.
In the case of Iran I'm sure they get angry about the sanctions we have placed on them. Destroying their economy. Particularly when we hypocritically maintain large arsenals of nuclear weapons ourselves (Australia excluded) and appear quite happy for other nations such as Israel to maintain large stocks of undeclared nuclear weapons.
Hezbollah won't like us because we constantly back Israel whenever it goes on an orgy of violence killing Lebanese or Palestinians. I've never heard anyone from the Muslim Brotherhood talk about hating the West. Nor the PLO nor the Alawites. The Turks are largely Sunni I believe. They don't seem to hate the West. In fact they have been trying to join the EU for a decade or more.

Dear Saltpeter

Your first premise presupposes that all dictators and tyrants are bad guys who want to oppress everybody, and are bad for the country. What you do not appreciate is that many countries today are multicultural cesspits with societies so divided that they would be ungovernable without a strong leader who was prepared to knock a few heads together to keep his country together.

If Ghaddaffi, Mubarak and Assad had simply stepped aside and allowed elections in their countries which are as badly socially divided as Libya, Egypt and Syria, those countries would have turned anarchic, which is exactly what is happening right now. Egypt has just had an election where the elected president tried to abolish democracy and he had the support of 55% of the population who are religious nutcases to do it. Do you support this democratic decision by 55% of Egyptians to create an Islamic republic or are you smart enough to understand that this will be a catastrophe for Egypt that will send it backwards into the future?

Or do you support the Egyptian armed forces who have arrested their religious nutcase elected President because they are as smart as Kamal Attaturk in Turkey who realised that the time had come to ignore the mullahs and turn Turkey into a modern state, by force if necessary? Democracies don't work in divided societies with diametrically opposed values within the population.

When countries turn anarchic and totally dysfunctional you end up with something like Somalia, North Korea, Cambodia, Iran or Afghanistan where somebody with a gang and a perverted ideology will shoot his way to the top and stay there.

And I most certainly do support the use of force by the western world to stop countries becoming anarchic or controlling anarchic countries before they do become a problem to the civilised world. Whether we should get involved in any war should be based upon a sensible appreciation of the situation and whether or not force is justified and will create some sort of stability with some sort of half way sensible government.