Syria

Yes, but how much did they sell and to whom? To sell to the EU they'd need to export it via pipeline or ship - both easy targets. That's just not gonna happen. The Syrian government might have tolerated small amounts of oil sales, but they're not likely to just sit by and watch the rebels start exporting large amounts of what Assad considers his oil. If anything, I expect this deal might allow some money to be sent to certain Syrian groups for future rights, but that's about it. And I would hope that they would choose not to deal in any way with the al-Qaeda dudes.

Anyway, the strongest proponent for Syrian intervention: Turkey
 
Glaucus said:
That's just not gonna happen. The Syrian government might have tolerated small amounts of oil sales, but they're not likely to just sit by and watch the rebels start exporting large amounts of what Assad considers his oil.
Click to expand...
That depends on a couple of things like what his operational capabilities are in those regions (obviously the rebels are the force in control in "rebel held" which means they control the oil production and the routes in certain areas. That's tautological. However, would Assad bomb the oil production infrastructure and the pipelines? People fighting for control of resources tend not to do that because they want to produce and sell those resources. The only reason anyone would destroy those things is if they were already beaten and wanted to deny the resource to the victor or if they really didn't care about the money and power of oil and just wanted to destroy a region.
Anyway, the strongest proponent for Syrian intervention: Turkey
Click to expand...
Yes, Turkey has been looking to get into this for a while. Turkey and Syria are competitors in the local oil transport biz. Syria has been looking to get Baghdad oil flowing to its terminals and Turkey wants the oil to flow to its terminals. The US destroyed the Iraq-Syria pipeline in the Iraq war. In May 2011 Iran agreed to pump natural gas through Syria but this is currently stymied by the security situation. The "people" of Syria don't really want to be involved in a civil war because there is nothing but suffering for them, but the players who are vying for the right to bill for the valuable commodities have nothing to lose but other people's lives and that's a price they are willing to pay.

It would be idiotic to try to start a hot war with Turkey by attacking them. It would open up NATO intervention too. Assad is currently winning and he has every reason NOT to attack Turkey but the rebels have every reason to provoke a NATO response because they are already under the understanding that once the bombing is over they will be given the country.

Israel is already counting on the fact that Syria will fall. They've decided it's safe to offer oil rights to Syria's Golan Heights.
 
Syria has got to be the worst place in the world right now. The sad thing is that the conflict isn't likely to end any time soon. At least not until Iran and Russia quit backing Assad's minority rule. That's all that's keeping this going. The sooner Assad falls the sooner this will end.
 
Glaucus said:
Syria has got to be the worst place in the world right now. The sad thing is that the conflict isn't likely to end any time soon. At least not until Iran and Russia quit backing Assad's minority rule. That's all that's keeping this going. The sooner Assad falls the sooner this will end.
Click to expand...
Or until the US, Saudi Arabia and Qatar stop backing foreign terrorists. If aid was cut to the rebels it would end next week. This is a proxy war and not a revolution. Give the people the vote tomorrow and they would choose Assad over Al Qaeda. The army is still loyal and they are winning.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Or until the US, Saudi Arabia and Qatar stop backing foreign terrorists. If aid was cut to the rebels it would end next week. This is a proxy war and not a revolution. Give the people the vote tomorrow and they would choose Assad over Al Qaeda. The army is still loyal and they are winning.
Click to expand...
Let's just say I believe the complete opposite of what you said. Except the part about them voting for al-Qaeda, but that's just a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. Most Syrians want neither al-Qaeda or Assad and with time both will be purged (hint: there are more than two sides fighting in Syria).
 
Glaucus said:
Let's just say I believe the complete opposite of what you said. Except the part about them voting for al-Qaeda, but that's just a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. Most Syrians want neither al-Qaeda or Assad and with time both will be purged (hint: there are more than two sides fighting in Syria).
Click to expand...
A lot of Libyans still miss Gaddafi and the life they had - living indoors, eating food, having limbs.

Put yourself in the situation though. If it was happening here, what would you rather have? Al Qaeda or Harper, or a free for all with neither. Much as I don't like Harper I'd stick with him until the fighting was done ... then I'd get back to getting rid of him.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
A lot of Libyans still miss Gaddafi and the life they had - living indoors, eating food, having limbs.
Click to expand...
I'm sure there are many. But this is how dictatorships work. And this is why we invented elections, to pass power to others in a peaceful manner. Gaddafi may have done some good things, but that wasn't enough. Hoarding power eventually gets you (and a lot of others) killed. That's just how it is. There was no other way around it so long as he was unwilling to surrender his power.

Put yourself in the situation though. If it was happening here, what would you rather have? Al Qaeda or Harper, or a free for all with neither. Much as I don't like Harper I'd stick with him until the fighting was done ... then I'd get back to getting rid of him.
Click to expand...
Trust me I have placed myself in that situation. I don't think of these things as some sort of abstract game of pawns and knights moving on a chess board. I think about how I'd react and how I'd deal with my family in that situation and yes it scares the shit out of me. I fully understand what is going on in Syria is absolutely horrible and I hope that everyone who could make it to a refugee camp has. But the fact is the war has started, there's no going back now. This is a civil war which means it's a very bloody and dirty affair with all sorts of crimes committed by everyone and with brother killing brother the wounds run deep. We're not likely to see a negotiated peace any time soon and the country has been ripped apart. I also know that Syria has been governed not by any form of democracy but by a dynasty enforced by fear and violence. On top of that, the ruling class is part of an ethnic minority and they've maintained their power by oppressing the ethnic majority. Which tells me that even if Assad does somehow manage to win and hold on to power, eventually all this will happen again. Maybe it'll be Assad's son who will be eventually overthrown by the majority, or his grandson, but the point is more blood will be spilt and the end result will be the same.

As for comparing Assad to Harper, well, you don't really think that's a fair analogy do you? You think this war is that petty? Assad can't be elected out of office and you know it. I'm not sure why you think he can be removed in any way that doesn't include violence.
 
Glaucus said:
As for comparing Assad to Harper, well, you don't really think that's a fair analogy do you?
Click to expand...

You've missed the point (and I could actually go on at length about looking at how both men fit in with the power structures in their respective countries and ways in which they could be compared but it would be further distracting).

Here is the point I was trying to make but was so apparently badly made that you missed it.

Harper has repressed many protests against the current western economic agenda that he so gleefully seems to participate in. The repression of G20 protests is the most obvious that comes to mind in which thousands of people were wrongfully arrested and even injured including protesters who tried to leave and even casual bystanders.

Imagine if, during the G20, the black block had gone further, even to the point of shooting police. Imagine if they had done it from the line of crowds and imagine that the police returned fire and people died. Imagine then that criminal elements joined the fray to further their own agendas (some of whom are being funded from outside the country). As this situation starts to spiral and the local police are getting bombed and people who work for the government (like letter carriers) are getting pulled from their homes and shot in the street. You have to chose a side. You may or may not agree with the G20 protesters but they aren't really involved because they are a peaceful group. The agenda has been taken over by others now. You have a decision to make (let's suppose refugee isn't on the table for you because you can't afford passage). Do you pick up a gun and fight along side the Hell's Angels and Black Block and every other petty criminal who has suddenly found a "cause" to expend their aggression on and all the little dictators to be who have found a land of opportunity for their own advancement in the mayhem - or do you hunker down and hope that the army (the one that Harper has the power to deploy as he sees fit) to restore order? Which do you prefer? The restoration of order so you can get back to having a life or continued street fighting and violence?
 
mc-cain-rebels_2577322b.jpg


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...osed-with-with-rebel-kidnappers-in-Syria.html

handshake300.jpg



judging from the light bulb over mccains head he has a "low energy, recyclable idea"... the one guy is wearing a "no war generation" t shirt while holding an assault rifle... bwahahahaha!!...

meanwhile... israel bails on the US...

http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/m...utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top