Syria Intervention Plans Fueled By Oil Interest. Gas May Not Be Weapons Grade But Custom Made.

[DhhD]

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

[Little Star]

1. Most interesting from your OP article....

Experts are unanimous that the shocking footage of civilians, including children, suffering the effects of some sort of chemical attack, is real - but remain divided on whether it involved military-grade chemical weapons associated with Assad's arsenal, or were a more amateur concoction potentially linked to the rebels.

Whatever the case, few recall that US agitation against Syria began long before recent atrocities, in the context of wider operations targeting Iranian influence across the Middle East.

Personally, I believe both sides have used chemical weapons. They are in a civil war. I also do not buy that we want to engage because of any humanitarian reasons. We are there because of our INTERESTS in the region, period!

[Scuba]

3. If we were motivated by humanitarian reasons then all Americans would have health care.

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. Always good to remember that US has a LONG history of fomenting civil unrest

Last edited Wed Sep 4, 2013, 11:03 AM - Edit history (1)

in various countries, then stepping to "help" by overthrowing the head of state, who all too often was originally a puppet set up by the US in the first place!
The pace most certainly has picked up since 2001.

[Little Star]

5. You got that right!

[Myrina]

15. ^ This, x10 ^

Indeed.

[KurtNYC]

2. good background info

[blkmusclmachine]

6. .

.

[libdem4life]

7. The sun never sets on the newest Empire ... The American Empire.

and our best friends, by default, the British.

[mikejfcurtis]

8. There is no choice for We The People but to keep our weapons at home.

I'm not saying I know who was behind this gas attack, but I am saying none of us civilians know, and that being the case we need to hold back the rush to attack. Especially an attack that will do NOTHING to end the bloodshed.

I doubt the missiles had anything to do with the gassing. It took 90 minutes from when the missiles were fired before any reporters on the ground reported anything. In a conflict as volatile as this one, I don not believe it would take civilian reporters 90 minutes to report something like a gas attack.

I believe the rebels were given these weapons by the Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan. They were not told what the weapons were, nor how to use them.

Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a "tube-like structure" while others were like a "huge gas bottle."
Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels.

Abdel-Moneim said his son and the others died during the chemical weapons attack. That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regime’s heartland of Latakia on Syria’s western coast, in purported retaliation.

"They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them," complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ "We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons."

"When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them," she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.

A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ‘J’ agreed. "Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material," he said.

"We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions," ‘J’ said.
(Here is the source article for most of the above.)
http://www.mintpressnews.com/author/dale-gavlak-and-yahya-ababneh/

The whole idea that the United States should see itself as a punisher of users of WMDs is obsurd to me to begin with. Reagan allowed Saddam to gas Kurds for TWO YEARS, with no intervention. The US and other countries have a well documented history of using these kinds of weapons. Atomic bombs, Napalm, Agent Orange, HELLO! Could we just keep our death machines at bay for once?

And what about THIS: Haven't we been supplying our friends in Saudi Arabia and other friendly Arab countries with BILLIONS in weapons for decades? Why aren't we just turning to these governments and saying "We have given you MIGHTY weapons of war. This is a muslim leader killing muslim people, YOU go fix it!"

[AverageJoe90]

9. I'm not so sure about that.

Some of you may remember Davey Koch's opposition to Syria.....and he's possibly THE wealthiest oil baron in the country. Now, if this WAS about oil, as a primary objective, then why would this man be so opposed to it? Could there possibly be something about this conflict that might either NOT be in the interest of the oil companies, and/or too great a risk to take advantage of?

[HooptieWagon]

10. Oil interests not necessarily getting it, sometimes its keeping it off market.

Remember the oil company windfall profits when Iraqi oil was kept off the market? Saudis want a gas pipeline through Syria to European market. Russia wants to keep their Europe monopoly. Oil interests lie with whomever's chips they're holding.

[AverageJoe90]

11. But are the Saudis willing to risk.....

The constant sabotage and destruction of oil/gas pipelines if Assad were to lose, and if this scenario were to come to fruition? That is definitely not only a very likely possibility but not at all hard to imagine, either; in fact, I'd be surprised if it DIDN'T happen to some degree.

And yes, I remember Iraq. But this isn't the same ballgame, and if the Saudis really are interested in oil/gas as a primary objective, they are taking one HELL of a risk.....sorry, but as criminal as I think most of the Saudi government is, they're not *that* foolish.

[Aerows]

13. In this case

the Saudis can fight their own war. We don't need to be in the middle of that quagmire. It is an invitation to chaos, bloodshed and tax payer dollars out of the window. I'm more concerned about bloodshed and chaos, but at some point, while we harp on how awful pensions and Social Security are, we need to discuss military expenditures. Novel idea, I know.

If the Arab League supports intervention, why aren't they sending their own troops in, and spending their own blood and treasure on this half-cocked adventure? Surely if Israel is gung-ho they should be on the front lines and have their own people there.

[HooptieWagon]

14. When Bandar Bush is involved, trouble for the US.

He was involved up to his eyeballs in Iran/Contra, and was behind pushing the US to invade Iraq. And involement in 9/11 is probable....Saudi involvement is suspected, but all references redacted in report. Bandar Bush is the Saudi Royal who proposed the pipeline and is pushing for it.

The Saudis are reluctant to use their military. I don't know why. Perhaps its not as strong as imagined, or perhaps Saudi Royals don't trust the loyalty of their military. Instead, the Saudi's have their "players" do the work for them. Al Qaeda serve as Saudi's "beserkers"...much like the Tea Party is to the GOP. Religious fundamentalists, and not very sophisticated or smart, they are easily whipped up into a fervor though difficult to control. They are useful in creating instability in a country. Saudi contributes a good deal of Al Qaeda's funding, through back-door channels.
For the heavy lifting, Saudi calls in US to do their dirty work. Bandar Bush spent many years in DC, and is a master manipulator...and knows whose palms to grease.

[Aerows]

12. We need to stay the hell out of there

It looks like Vietnam. A civil war with two factions that are completely at odds to one another, and no real goal in sight.

It looks worse than Iraq and if you would have asked me if I would see something looming like this under a Democratic president 10 years ago, I would have advised you to see therapy.

It's lunacy to mess with another country's civil war. It's like asking to shoot yourself in the foot, then pointing the gun at your groin. Nothing good comes out of it.