Not for the Oil..wearing a bit thin

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Let's face it..the reason we're doing nothing about Syria, is plain and simple...they've nothing we want!..and not riddled with the Terrorists that scare our governments to death!

 

So, next time we invade a country, and our politicians harp on about 'Human Rights' abuses, and 'regime change for the Good of the people' and 'weapon's of mass destruction'....I suggest we ignore it completely (as I did the first time around!...because it's utter and complete lies!)

 

Lies, Lies and Damned Lies

 

I bet the Syrian's wish they had Oil...then the UN would be in there faster than you can blink!...but, they havent...they only have a population of Brown People..so, they're worthless to Western Governments

Edited February 23, 2012 by UK_Widowmaker

[Gr.Viper 131]

Well, the Saudis have oil and public executions by beheading.

[+Swordsman422 61]

But the Saudis pretend to like us because we make their nation wealthy as they are. And we're willing to look the other way so long as they keep the taps open.

 

Screw oil. We just need to get away from it. NOT foreign oil, ALL oil. It'll be hard for a little bit, but once we've moved over to something else, then we can indiscriminate as to who we spread freedom to and who we save from oppression. We won't have to worry about the fuel and lubrication for our war machine drying up.

[JediMaster 451]

We need space-based power. Or fusion. Either would remove our reliance on foreign sources.

[+Stary 2,427]

He-3, there's plenty near The Rock

[+whiteknight06604 934]

I understand the sentiment if a little simplistic,idealistic and incorrect. Syria has and continues to support terrorism. they are a huge conduit into Iraq for weapons and being of Lebanese decent I have nothing but hatred for the destruction that Syrian interferience and support for millitants and terrorists have caused in Lebanon.It's not about oil or the lack of it although thats a valid excuse as it's a vital national interest but more to do with the fact the the civilian populations are war weary and that the goverments that would normaly intervien are broke.Anyone who thought Irag was about oil has no understanding of the war at all. it defies logic to spend trillions to liberate a nation in order to secure a small amount of oil.I am at a loss to understand why sometimes we(the US) interviens but others it dosn't but it has almost nothing to do with oil and more to do with the political climat,the logistics involved world opinion and the willingness of the local population to rise up. it's so much more complex than oil although it can be a factor in some cases.

[+Dave 2,322]

I understand the sentiment if a little simplistic,idealistic and incorrect. Syria has and continues to support terrorism. they are a huge conduit into Iraq for weapons and being of Lebanese decent I have nothing but hatred for the destruction that Syrian interferience and support for millitants and terrorists have caused in Lebanon.It's not about oil or the lack of it although thats a valid excuse as it's a vital national interest but more to do with the fact the the civilian populations are war weary and that the goverments that would normaly intervien are broke.Anyone who thought Irag was about oil has no understanding of the war at all. it defies logic to spend trillions to liberate a nation in order to secure a small amount of oil.I am at a loss to understand why sometimes we(the US) interviens but others it dosn't but it has almost nothing to do with oil and more to do with the political climat,the logistics involved world opinion and the willingness of the local population to rise up. it's so much more complex than oil although it can be a factor in some cases.

 

 

Right on Matt. If we go into Syria, Iran will surely get involved. Also China and Russia vetoed the UN resoution. Going in anyway could be devastating to the point that it might even bring one of them to the side of the Syrian government. Has nothing to do with oil. Where Syria is, what they have supported over the years and the implications that it could spark a huge middle east war is why we arent bombing the piss out of them.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Right on Matt. If we go into Syria, Iran will surely get involved. Also China and Russia vetoed the UN resoution. Going in anyway could be devastating to the point that it might even bring one of them to the side of the Syrian government. Has nothing to do with oil. Where Syria is, what they have supported over the years and the implications that it could spark a huge middle east war is why we arent bombing the piss out of them.

 

Well, if thats the case...god help us all if we go plowing into Iran!

[+Brain32 265]

The whole Syria thing is strange to say the least.

The delegation of Arab alliance(or what's-it's-name) that went there and wrote a report according to which they had full access to everything and found Syria is under attack by outside source which was hidden and ignored and the delegation was at such pressure they resigned pulls for more suspicion.

Not to mention numerous reports that the so called rebels are foreign groups which includes Al Quaida and other regimes.

So I don't support "Hey let's stick-rape the current secular government and install extremists" thing one bit.

[Gr.Viper 131]

Not to mention numerous reports that the so called rebels are foreign groups which includes Al Quaida and other regimes.

Just like there were reports of them being behind the rebels in other ME revolutions. So far they've been successful in replacing mostly secular rulers with religious parties and general chaos.

 

Also China and Russia vetoed the UN resoution

Russia had a lovely arms market in Syria and holds probably the last military base far beyond its borders there. However something tells me now is not the time when Mr. Pu would want his tanks go too far away from his mansion.

[+Dave 2,322]

I agree Brain, I think Putin's days are numbered. The bad part is, that it will be extremely bloodly on a scale that makes Libya and Syria look tame.

[+whiteknight06604 934]

I'm not for an Iraq style invasion of Iran but there should be strikes aimed at slowing the nuclear program. it can't be stopped completely but if it's set back long enough then a decapitating strike leveled against leadership could cause a vacume that MIGHT usher in a more sane goverment and with the nuke program in disaray it should work out fairly well. What needs to be done is to create mistrust between Iran and Russia,maybe with planting Iranian weapons in Chechen hands and then suporting Israel in a strike by putting massive pressure on Iraq not to get in the way and allow US or Israeli refueling of an Israeli strike hopefully with Western air units lending help. once the nuke program is slowed and leadership in Iran dead then support the freedom movements in Iran. no matter who does what iran will unleash terror and indepents(terrorists) will attack the West so sitting by and watching will not really help.A total naval blockade coupled with a cooled relationship with Russia should have the Iranian economy in total shambles. Iran if doner right will be a "cakewalk" as long as we don't get involved on the ground and bogged down with an isurgency. The key is to forment unrest destroy the insane goverment/nuclear program and support the freedom movement.No matter what everyone needs to be ready for terrorist retaliation.

[JediMaster 451]

Russia's last ME outpost is Syria, so their interest there is purely strategic. They don't give a damn about Asssad himself, they just want to keep their position.

Likewise, China doesn't care about him either. They just have a vested interest in keeping the UN out of "internal affairs" because they don't want the UN one day knocking on THEIR door. So Iraq invades Kuwait, they're on board with kicking them out. Vague rumors of WMDs and general "he's a threat" talk, and they oppose intervention in Iraq. China's motto has always been "what happens in *insert country name here* stays in *insert country name here*."

[+Brain32 265]

China's motto has always been "what happens in *insert country name here* stays in *insert country name here*."

 

What's wrong with that motto?

[+Typhoid 231]

I understand the sentiment if a little simplistic,idealistic and incorrect. Syria has and continues to support terrorism. they are a huge conduit into Iraq for weapons and being of Lebanese decent I have nothing but hatred for the destruction that Syrian interferience and support for millitants and terrorists have caused in Lebanon.It's not about oil or the lack of it although thats a valid excuse as it's a vital national interest but more to do with the fact the the civilian populations are war weary and that the goverments that would normaly intervien are broke.Anyone who thought Irag was about oil has no understanding of the war at all. it defies logic to spend trillions to liberate a nation in order to secure a small amount of oil.I am at a loss to understand why sometimes we(the US) interviens but others it dosn't but it has almost nothing to do with oil and more to do with the political climat,the logistics involved world opinion and the willingness of the local population to rise up. it's so much more complex than oil although it can be a factor in some cases.

 

 

Good analysis - right on target in my opinion and far better than the simplistic "blood for oil" idiocy that one normally sees.

 

If anyone doesn't think Syria is and has been in the support-to-terrorist business, they're in the willfully-deluded or blindly-ignorant crowds.

 

Syria is far more complex than other uprisings have been including the fact that Syria has been a client state of Iran for some time now. War with Syria means a general war across the mid-East including with Iran. And such a war is likely to go chem-bio-nuclear in relatively short order.

 

With those kinds of stakes on the table - prudence and a carefully thought through strategy are paramount. Our Current Criminal Regime (US) has neither the intellect, regional background or stones to craft any sort of credible, competent or effective approach to the area.

 

So far as our country(s) having the will to engage - I think we've now proven that we don't. We have validated the strategy of Al Queda and the Taliban to wear us out - we haven't the national will to engage and stay to acomplish the mission. By engaging in a general strategic retreat from the region short of defeating our enemies - we've proven to the other playeres in the region that we haven't got what it takes to engage and achieve our goals - whatever those goals may have been. (The Taliban predicted that we'd bail after 10 years - just about right on schedule)

 

What will happen the next time is that we are more likely to simply stand off and pound the stuffing out of anyone who ticks us off for whatever reason. And lacking sufficient general purpose forces to sustain even that limited endeavor - one of these times could more likely include the tactic of "turning keys" for lack of any other options.

 

Not a good prospect for the region.

[+Swordsman422 61]

I don't have a problem with us going places and breaking s**t. I just have a problem with oil, which is making certain regions of the world get more attention than necessary, when I do honestly feel that we should concentrate our military prowess on those nations that manage national issues by (this comment might get this site banned on some search engines) running over their citizens with tanks.

 

I think that people who are free should rescue those who do not have the freedom to decide their governments for themselves. Flip side of that is that if those people choose a government that doesn't like us, we should be okay with that too. It was their vote. They got it and we gave it to them. If they want to hate us after, that's fine. We don't have to be allies or trading partners or tourist destinations. But they should still have the ability to choose how they're governed and by whom.

 

I admit, this is overly simplified, and in a perfect world it would work. But the globe's nations have created such a tangled web of alliances where your friends' friends are your enemies, that someone much smarter and better educated than I should be the one figuring this out and making policy.

Edited February 23, 2012 by Swordsman422

[+Brain32 265]

I don't have a problem with us going places and breaking s**t.

Rly?

 

I think that people who are free should rescue those who do not have the freedom to decide their governments for themselves.

Sure like thousands of imported rebels do now in Syria...

BTW Syria will have elections in April IIRC but some people on international scene don't want Assad in the race, how is that democratic?

 

Flip side of that is that if those people choose a government that doesn't like us, we should be okay with that too. It was their vote. They got it and we gave it to them. If they want to hate us after, that's fine. We don't have to be allies or trading partners or tourist destinations. But they should still have the ability to choose how they're governed and by whom.

 

You got me totally lost on this, you think it's ok to spend billions of dollars, risk thousands of lives and cause major international tensions just to enable people who might actually be a violent minority come to power in a country and hate your guts and scream "Death to America" while burning your flag together with the people that previously weren't anywhere close to that?

 

It's like saying "hey let's totally stretch to enable a gang of extremists make a million peaceful people just as extreme as them...

 

Makes no sense to me at all, and quite honestly I find the whole Arab "Spring"...a potentially very dangerous prospect, I noticed that during Libya mess although I'm glad that Gaddafi MF'er is done with because of all the sh** he did before...

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

[+Swordsman422 61]

I'm not talking about potentially enabling a violent minority. I want to enable everyone. But the gist of your understanding is correct. The toppled oppressive regime that hated us might be replaced by a democratically elected government that's good to its people that hates us, but at least the people are hating us of their own will and not simply because the Supreme Military Commander, President-for-life, and King of Kings of their Socialist Democratic Federated Republic told them to. I'd rather them not dislike us for kicking the fella out, but at least it's their choice. If they want to make somethin' of it, they can come and try, and we can remind them what made them free to do so. Being proponent of free will doesn't mean you get to always like the choices. I am reminded of a quote from Voltaire about not agreeing with someone, but being willing to defend their right to disagree with me.

 

I think it's BS that the international community thinks it should have a say in who a nation elects as its leader, so long as the populace ELECTS him, chooses the form of his government, and is not turned to oppressing a minority. Then we're back in the situation where someone is suffering at the hands of their government, which is what we tried to prevent.

 

Again, I'm dealing with ideal systems here and not in the real world with its network of alliances, racial enmities, and the failings of human nature. But at least where I'm standing, the right thing isn't always the responsible thing.

 

I agree with you that the Arab Spring is potentially dangerous. But it's going to take a couple of decades to see where it ends up for me to decide if it's good or bad. I HOPE that the people in these countries choose paths that satisfy a need for freedom and self-government, instead of repeating the policies of past regimes with only new faces as the major change. Therein lies the danger: that not only do the new governments dislike us, but they dislike us because the New Boss said so.

 

This is why I have no issue going somewhere and breaking stuff. We should stand between the man who is being kicked down and the man who does the kicking, even if the guy we just saved might spit in our eye afterwards. The reward is not treasure, thanks, or friendship. The reward is something greater. I know, I know; pretty words will not bring back a family member sacrificed in a foreign war. And the expenditures in lives, money, material, national prestige, or international esteem won't seem worth fighting for the freedoms of a group of ingrates. But I don't expect anyone to share my admittedly bizarre beliefs or even understand them. This is just what they are.

[+Brain32 265]

I understand you buddy, unfortunately the world is far from idealistic right now...that's why I keep my skepticism about such actions...

[+Julhelm 266]

I don't believe Iran would be a cakewalk with their fragmented leadership and command structure.

[JediMaster 451]

An air campaign against Iran is hard to predict. It could go any way. A ground campaign, well that's easy. It would be a cluster%#&@ of epic proportions. Of course, any action likely to impact oil prices (and the problem is oil speculators LOOK for reasons to raise the prices, like Mahmoud sneezing, a car wreck in Saudi Arabia, or a whale farting by an offshore rig in Nigeria) would make the entire world situation worse without any shooting even having to start. That's what Iran has over us. We don't get oil from them, we don't care. Yet other countries do, and on top of that they can affect a vital supply route with very little effort (a ship attacked here, some mines there). We'd have to spend a ton of resources to hurt them, and they have to do very little to hurt our economy. Sure, we're hurting their economy now, and that makes it more likely they WOULD hurt ours of course.

So, if Iran decides to play the oil supply card, THEN I can see attacks in their future under the "nothing left to lose" theory. As long as they merely threaten to hurt the oil supply without actually doing so, only Israel would dare go after them.

[+Swordsman422 61]

Oh, jeez, JM, right on. We see a couple Iranian ships park at a Syrian pier and now we're paying 20 cents more a gallon for gas. You are totally right.

[+Typhoid 231]

As I recall - some years back there were several highly disruptive events to the oil supplies coming out of the Persian Gulf. Somehow, we all still got our gas.

 

Let us not get too worried about something that no one actually has the stones (except the Irational-Iranians) to start.

[+Swordsman422 61]

You weren't living in Georgia in late 2008 when the gas lines were a mile long and gas stations had no fuel for no explicable reason. Literally everywhere in the country except metro Atlanta was getting petroleum while we were busy siphoning it from other people's cars or getting up at 3:30 to wait two hours to fill a tank. People like guns around here, too, so combining that with tempers and frustrations over fuel scarcity was not a pleasant situation I would want to live through again.

 

Thus, screw oil. I want something else.