Why they want to go to Syria It's chemical Warfare alright but not the kind you're thinking of…

[Champion Jack]

The song remains the same

Iraq wasn’t about “weapons of mass destruction.” It was about oil. We borrowed the money from the Chinese so that we could make it safe for the Chinese and Exxon to frack Iraq. Bombing Syria is not about “chemical weapons of mass destruction.” It’s about a gas pipeline that has been proposed to take gas from Quatar to Europe – via Syria and Turkey.

Russia does not want the proposed gas pipeline to Europe, where they export most of their gas. So they support the Assad military dictatorship, their client and puppet, who has blocked it on their behalf.

The gulf Arabs want a new gas pipeline to Europe. The Turks want the pipeline to Europe. So they support the rebels who are trying to overthrow Assad.

The Syrians, meanwhile have proposed an alternate pipeline – from the Iranian gas fields, through Iraq, Syria, then north to Turkey. Something Quatar is opposed to. Civil war broke out shortly after the Assad regime signed on for this route, cutting Quatar out and elevating Iran. The Syrian rebels are (of course) bankrolled by Quatar. . .

We are dependent on Arab oil. The Turks are our allies, as are the Israelis. So the Obama Administration supports Quatar, Turkey and Israel in opposition to the Russians, Syrians and Iranians. Over the ‘preferred’ route of a gas pipeline.

And meanwhile back in the States, who gets the first LNG export concession to ship US shale gas to Europe ? Quatar Petroleum International and Exxon.

http://blog.shaleshockmedia.org/2013/09/07/gas-pipeline-war-in-syria/

[Little Star]

1. k&r But this needs to be in GD also so more people can see it. Would you consider cross-posting?

[Champion Jack]

6. Ok

[Little Star]

8. pm me a link & I'll go give you a k&r again because it's a good OP! :)

[dkf]

2. How Cheniere Energy Got First In Line To Export America's Natural Gas

If you want to see what the natural gas revolution in America has wrought, there’s no better place than the Sabine Pass liquefied natural gas port in coastal Louisiana. There you can peer into five massive storage tanks, each almost big enough to contain Madison Square Garden. Taken together, they can hold the liquefied equivalent of 17 billion cubic feet of natural gas–a quarter of what the United States uses in a day.

They’re empty.

Built in 2008 by Houston-based Cheniere Energy when it appeared certain that the U.S. would soon run short on natural gas and need imports to make ends meet, they ran headlong into the Great American Gas Boom. Drillers in recent years have unlocked so much gas from tight rock that America now enjoys record gas supplies and prices that are just one-quarter of what buyers in Europe and Asia pay. Projections are that the annual U.S. gas supply could grow a further 25% by 2035.

Rather than let those tanks rust as relics, though, an army of construction workers is turning an import terminal into an export terminal. By 2016 a processing plant will be ready to ship out 500 million cubic feet of gas a day. In the three years after that Cheniere expects to build five more identical systems. The $12 billion investment should in turn be able to export about 4% of America’s current natural gas output, a remarkable turnaround for Cheniere and for Chief Executive Charif Souki. “It’s a revolutionary thing, absolutely astonishing, that America will be an exporter of hydrocarbons,” he says.

But just as astonishing as the idea of the U.S. joining the likes of Qatar and Saudi Arabia are the hurdles this new push faces. In a remarkable oddity of 21st-century commerce, other companies–big companies, led by chemical giants from Dow and Huntsman to Alcoa and Nucor Steel–are fighting to block gas exports. Their self-interested argument: It’s against America’s economic interests to allow the cheap gas to flow outside our borders–and away from their hungry plants. “I’m not saying companies shouldn’t be able to export,” says Peter Huntsman, chief executive of Huntsman Corp. “But the question is, how much? Let’s not export an economic advantage that American consumers have today.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/04/17/first-mover-how-cheniere-energy-is-leading-americas-lng-revolution/

[hueymahl]

3. Thanks for the post

Great info.

[dkf]

5. I'm surprised I hadn't heard of congress interest in blocking export shipments of LNG.

I wonder if I was merely oblivious or if its been way under the radar.

I guess I assumed congress was so dysfunctional they couldn't accomplish anything anyway, but they seem to be largely successful with just this one leak in the dam.

[Pleidianfriend723]

4. I'm sure this is part of the reason for this conflict, but I doubt it's the whole reason

I assume Quatar is "Qatar"

[4bucksagallon]

7. Pure speculation from vested interests at this point.

By the way your link is not working.

[Champion Jack]

12. .?? Hmmm

Checking

[Locrian]

9. links not coming up - n/t

Here's a link to another (similar) article:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines

[Champion Jack]

13. Apparently there are issues with that site ,sorry was working this morn when I posted

[northoftheborder]

10. So why are Republicans opposed to this "intervention"? Just the usual "hate Obama"?

[meanit]

18. They may be opposed and they may not be opposed,

but that means absolutely nothing. It's all about boxing Obama in so they can screw him over for whatever he does. I don't think people understand the fanatical resolve of the GOP to accomplish that.
CNN just has a report up that McCain said that Obama would face impeachment if he puts boot on the ground in Syria, so go figure.

[lumberjack_jeff]

21. It's the populists, the "tea party" types that are most vocal.

Mainstream, pro-business republican types like McCain are just fine with it.

[marble falls]

11. Yup. They love the war and loathe the President. Get ready for the surreal scene...

of the President pandering to the GOP, begging them to sign onto a war they want more than anything else in the world. Which they will reluctantly sign on to after they get all sorts of concessions.

Sometimes reality itself buggers the imagination.

[George II]

14. It's taken a lot of assumptions and guesses to get to this post's conclusions

[truedelphi]

23. How so? It all fits for me.

When you dig around into the prelude for war against Afghanistan you come up with these facts: July 2001, Thomas Simons, former US Ambassador to Pakistan; Karl Inderfurth, former assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs; and Lee Coldren, former State Department expert on South Asia, meet in Berlin with negotiators from the Taliban, Russia and six oil-rich nations that neighbor Afghanistan (BBC news, Sept. 18; the Guardian, Sept. 22, 2001).**
According to Jean-Charles Brisard, co-author of "Bin Laden: The Hidden Truth": "At one point during the negotiations, the US reps told the Taliban, 'Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs." Naif Naik, former Pakistani minister for foreign affairs, was also present. He recalled that the discussions turned on "the formation of a government of national unity. If the Taliban had accepted this coalition, they would have immediately received international economic aid ... And the pipe lines from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan would have come.'' Naik also recalled that Tom Simons, the US representative at these meetings, openly threatened the Taliban and Pakistan. "Simons said, 'Either the Taliban behave as they ought to, or Pakistan convinces them to do so, or we will use another option.' The words Simons used were 'a military operation','' Naik claimed (Inter Press Service, Nov. 15, 2001).

Same mentality exists today as did then.

[truth2power]

15. Of course it's not about any of the things Obama (and Kerry) shed crocodile tears over...

The US Govt. doesn't give a crap about anything that has to do with Democracy or human rights or the lives of innocents anywhere in the world. Or birth defects caused by our sowing countries with depleted uranium. Or turning whole families into red mist.

As long as the MIC can make another nickel off it.

[heaven05]

16. this just can't be true!!!

it just can't!!!!! Money and PROFIT is usually at the bottom of evil doings by a government.

[pangaia]

17. Talking heads... blah blah

Thanks for your thoughtful OP.
Just watched a few minutes of FTN- Bob Milqtoast Shieffer) and Inside Washington on PBS... both against my better judgement as I never bother with TV 'news.'
On FTN.. Shieffer was plugging a Woodward book..looked like something was crawling up his leg. :&gt
And on IW even Mark Shields was just blathering on..
NOBODY said anything about .. whoopeedoo GAS... DUH!!!

It's like if ANYBODY mentions this their first born will be killed...
Terrible situation..
So obvious yet so invisible....
So thanks again...

[felix_numinous]

19. So we should not fight

The Army of the 1%'s wars anymore. That's who the MIC is-- they are NOT fighting for our well being, safety or even for anyone else's, much as that fairy tale appeals.

At some point the pubic, the 'common folk', proles--awaken. When propaganda stops working, then it's back to more shock and awe, and other forms of emotional appeal-- there are lots more methods to use for compliance. We have seen what happens to people who know too much and are too much trouble.

Ahh the 1%-- Carlin was right--'They're in an exclusive club and you're not in it!'

THIS is the world President Obama has to work with--amongst very powerful assholes-- and I don't think he is an asshole. I think he actually believed he could implement at least some of his principles.

GWBush was a member of the 1% gilded families that share ownership of most of the world--so what happened during his reign exposed the 1% agenda for all to see.

President Obama likely believed he could implement at least some of his policies--but I think he is not able to. He is just trying to survive amongst the most ruthless, powerful sociopaths on the planet. To go up against them...well you can't. His lack of influence has nothing to do with race or background.

I'm not sure there is a president on this Earth who can go up against the 1% right now, with the army and private mercenary armies, domestic police, intelligence and surveillance, internet/communications and multimedia in their pockets. Our elections are rigged too.

Maybe tomorrow I'll wake up with more hope, but today I am facing this music. Maybe it's a good day for a concert.

[snagglepuss]

20. k and r

[Wilms]

22. ^