Careful David.

You might get what you asked for

Thwow him to the fwoor? 

Why will the US think twice about an intervention? Syria has the thirdlargest Anti Aicraft defenses after North Korea (120,000 infantry soldiers with Stinger Missiles + other stuff) and Iran (including latest missile and gun assets).

The "free world" has waited two years now and all of a sudden Assad is such a bad boy we have to clip his ear?

Rather ask: What does the US/UK want now? We bombed Iraq to liberty for oil, we bombed Southern Sudan and Lybia to freedom for oil and refineries.
Hypocrites - all of them.

After Iraq the western powers needed a really damn good reason before they interfered in Syria, Cameron thought chemical weapons usage was it, parliament thought otherwise.

I concede you have to very careful how you use a loaded weapon but only a silly bugger throws it away before the shooting starts.

Its inevitable unfortunately.  Syria is the next target in the soon-to-be-concluded First Oil War.  It's been raging for a few decades now and is the concerted effort by the 'western' petrochemical military-industrial complex to, through the US mainly (but also Europe) secure control of the Middle East oilfields.  Only two countries remain outside of direct, or indirect (alliance based) control in the region – Syria and Iran.

Syria will soon be toppled.

Just recap what's happened over the last two years.

Assad is a Russian-backed 'tyrant' who inherited the result of his father's coup; an Alawite heretic, largely secularist governor from a Shia minority ethnicity.

2010 Assad regime is attacked from within by Sunni majority 'freedom fighters' (or 'Rebels').  These are supported by Jihadist insurgents from neighbouring countries, and apparently also from Afghanistan and Pakistan (suggestions of Taleban and 'Al Quaeda' involvement too).  These rebels/insurgents are armed by the West with weapon stockpiles left over from the Balkan War, funnelled in through Egypt under the cover of the Arab League.

Why?  So 'the west' can destabilise Syria and create ungoverned space to allow an invasion and siezure of control without having to invade a sovreign country (an illegal action under 'international law' whatever that is).  Assad however, despite losing control of the majority of the country has been able to hang on due to aid and supplies from Russia.

So the war rumbles on and the clock starts ticking.

A few weeks ago, Obama says 'chemical weapon use is a red line'...

OK.  For what?  I mean we stood by for 2 years while we funnelled in arms to 'rebels' who are basically the religious psychotics we've been fighting for the last 15 years (remember the War on Terror?).

OK, so, a few weeks later, pretty much on the day that UN chemical weapon inspectors arrive in Syria, we get a massive chemical weapon attack all over the news.  No real evidence of who did it or why – so almost impossible to say one way or the other until someone impartial can get in there and investigate.

Within hours the whole western media, and western governments start ramping up that we need to bomb the heck out of Syria, firstly to 'protect the Syrian civilians', and then to 'punish the Assad regime', and then to 'deter Assad from using chemical weapons again'.

The evidence is still completely lacking at this stage of course, although Obama is talking about 'reliatory strikes' (retaliation?!?!  Who attacked the US?), and the whole media machine goes into overdrive blaming Assad and prepping western populations for the long-overdue war.

Why does US/UK want this?  Because it's all part of the grand strategy for the completion of the Oil War.

So...ask yourself this.

WHY would Assad possibly want to use chemical weapons a few weeks after Obama basically said 'do that and we're coming in'.

Because he's insane?  A bad man?  He knows Putin will step in to defend him?  The Russians have already committed to supplying a massive air defence net which is on the way at the moment...

Is it perhaps possible that the 'rebels' (who are a rag-tag bunch at best and include the sort of insane religious fighters who will cut out and eat a man's heart on YouTube) have overrun a chemical weapons factory, and in order to run a 'false flag' strike have used these to bring the US into the war?

Who knows?

But one thing is for certain, the chemical strike has been the cassus belli 'the west' has been looking for to get into Syria and take direct control of the Deir Ez Zor oil fields.  After oil...the oil's stopped flowing.  Prior to the war the oilfields were split between:

Syrian Petroleum Company 50% share
Anglo-Dutch Shell 32% share
Himalaya Energy Syria (joint Chinese/Indian consortium)
Total (French)
Gulfsands Petroleum (UK)



I'll be surprised if we don't see US airstrikes, followed by boots on the ground to secure the wellheads and install a puppet governor.  The real wildcard on this one is Russia and China.  What will they do if the US goes by the UN again?  What will they do if Assad (Russia's man) is toppled.
And the whole thing is made even more complex because its happening right in the middle of the war between Sunni and Shia Islam.  God and guns make for a volatile mix.

And after Syria...Iran.


Of course in the meantime the 'ordinary Syrian'; people like you and me get caught up in all the killing and suffering.  


On the broader dispassionate scale though, is 'the west' wrong to try and secure the oil from religious barbarism?  Well, take a look around you.  Is there anything in your immediate environment that isn't made of oil (plastic), or didn't get there by transportation that used oil?  Tough one that isn't it?  Realpolitik bites...

Quote from: Luddite on 30 August 2013, 04:24:36 PM

OK.  For what?  I mean we stood by for 2 years while we funnelled in arms to 'rebels' who are basically the religious psychotics we've been fighting for the last 15 years (remember the War on Terror?).

1  Yep but while they are killing each other it keeps them busy and away from the Western World - so why stop them?

2  Its thier country who are we to decide how they are governed or by whom? Or even what laws they choose to live under.

3  Its a Civil war lets leave them to it and stop it becoming a more widespread conflict.

4  Syria's Government probably regards the Rebels in the same way as we regarded the IRA and other Irish Para military groups.   I don't recall our government being
    happy about being told how they should deal with them.

Quote from: Luddite on 30 August 2013, 04:24:36 PM
A few weeks ago, Obama says ‘chemical weapon use is a red line’…

This brings to mind " Pots and Kettles" when you think of Vietnam - Agent Orange, Indescrimanate use of Napalm, Huge amount of ordinance dropped on Cambodia much of which is still there killing civilians on a regular basis.

Problem A: We do have alternatives to oil but do not use them.

Problem B: North Korea, Iran and Syria have the worlds largest AA capability. Furthermore we are talking total fanatics. Vietnamese fanatics with a fraction of the resources killed over 58,000 Americans that were better trained and equipped - Go figure!

Problem C: If oil and terrorism are the enemy why do we step in if terrorists start killing each other - doe snot make any sense. In that particular case I rather give them weapons to speed up the process.

Problem D: Military intervention could be highly destabilising. You can say about Saddam whatever you want but Iraq under Saddam kept Iran in check. Go figure 2!

Problem E: Civilians are ALWAYS on the wrong side of the gun. Have always been, will always be. But here is the option: If you gonna die by the gun, you might as well take up the means to shoot back. I am sure Hobbes/Locke would approve.

I hate to be sarcastic but intervention after 2 years of war seems more than just hypocritical. It is wrong for the arguments brought forward, it is wrong for the timing and morally questionable. "Undisputable evidence" we all heard this before. A german newsteam discovered the rebels have used chemical weapons and NOT the regime. Does that mean we gonna support Assad now? Do we still hit him? Do we hit them anyways and let God/Allah sort them out?

A 'stiff' response might be 'hard on' civilians.

Pun intended I assume....and justly so!