Report: Dozens dead in Syrian chemical weapons experiment - Page 2




 
--
 
September 20th, 2007  
rock45
 

Topic: Syrian chemical weapons


Hi senojekips
It was your post the first mention oil in this thread. The point I'm trying to make or don't understand is why Syria a known terrorist supporting country is allowed to get away with this.


senojekips Quote:
Originally Posted by rock45
phoenix80 why is Syria allowed to get away with this? We attack Iraq for suspected chemical weapons why not Syria for what seems confirmed?

There's very little oil in Syria, and what fields they have are nearly finished.
September 20th, 2007  
senojekips
 
 
Once again Rock45,.... "because there is little oil in Syria", I can't be much more clear than that, without having to spoon feed you with global economics, which I neither have the time nor incentive to do.

Do you honestly think that the coalition would have intervened on behalf of Kuwait in the manner that they did, if there were no oil there? The US and other countries transported 10s of thousands of men and countless tons of support materiel half way around the globe to go to the aid of a country of 6,900 square miles (about 3/4 the size of New Jersey) of mainly desert, and 2.5 million people???
September 20th, 2007  
rock45
 

Topic: Oil


Hi senojekips
No need to spoon feed me I understand I don't agree 100 percent with what you think on this. There is merit with your Kuwait statement and the Kingdom would have been threaten I hear you. I guess nothing comes before oil but this I thought this had a chance since chemical weapons were involved. Any cargo ship leaving a Syrian port could be a death ship. I rate them behind Iran I hope Israel watches them closely.
--
September 20th, 2007  
Spartacus
 
 
We are not in Iraq for the oil. If we were, we would have increased the pumping capabilities by now. But that is a separate issue.

Rock, we initiated action against the seemingly most imminent danger. We cannot begin a new campaign until the old one is finished. And Spike is right, we already devasted one oil producing county capability, why drive up the costs and hit another one before the first one is back on track?

BTW speaking of international goodwill, I believe we have some brothers who are serving in places which offer little to no resources in exchange for the sweat and blood they sacrifice. The payment in exchange for their service is sparing innocent civilans their lives.
September 20th, 2007  
A Can of Man
 
 
National security issues were certainly at the forefront but I have no doubt oil lobbyists really pushed for that war as well. Could have sped up the process for all we know. But I think it is far more complicated than that. Below are some reasons, in no particular order.
1) US was too eager to smash Iraq
2) EU just said "no" to the US too many times before, killing off their credibility.
3) The UN took their own resolutions for a joke, therefore taking themselves out of the picture.
4) Saddam Hussein really WAS acting like a suspicious guy. Turned out maybe he didn't have a whole lot to hide... just he's kinda weird.
5) Oil Lobbyists really pushed for that war. Heck, a major oil lobbyist is the Vice President.
September 20th, 2007  
senojekips
 
 
Rock45, Russia, China, North Korea and probably another dozen countries have stockpiles of chemical weapons, or the ability to make them on demand, we haven't attacked them, why Syria. The simple truth is that we can't just go around committing acts of war against every country that is a perceived threat to us.

However someone somewhere has decided that if the country is also a threat to our oil supplies, it becomes a cat of a completely different colour. The simple blunt truth is that WMD was just an excuse. Did we pull out of Iraq once we found out that there were no WMD? No! We certainly didn't elect to remain merely to act as a referee between the internal factions, but that is what has happened. Because we thought at the time, that if we leave the power will go back to the Baathists and we will be back at square one. Now that is of less importance as we find ourselves mired in what could be an ongoing debacle for perhaps tens of years.

Quote:
We are not in Iraq for the oil. If we were, we would have increased the pumping capabilities by now. But that is a separate issue.
Spartacus when you are up to your arse in alligators, you have no time to think about draining the swamp. Once again, the fastest way to get Iraq back on it's feet would be to get the oil flowing. We know that, and so do the insurgency, that is why they frustrate our efforts at every turn, they are trying to make it that there will be no oil flow until the Baathists are back in power. To state that the oil is a separate issue is short sighted in the extreme. Oil is what this war revolves around.

There is no way that we can now disengage our forces without being made to sit down to a nice big serving of humble pie. Our leaders are doing everything in their power to convince us that the Iraqis are well on the way to being able to manage their own affairs so that we can "get out of Dodge City" without to much egg on our faces. The only thing wrong with this is that the remainder of the world can see right through it.

Perhaps I'm just a pessimist, but i have great faith in pessimism. After all, "A pessimist is generally a man who is almost never disappointed with the actual outcome"
September 20th, 2007  
phoenix80
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rock45
phoenix80 why is Syria allowed to get away with this? We attack Iraq for suspected chemical weapons why not Syria for what seems confirmed?
I am not sure if Syria got away with these stuff. Israel blew them up!

September 20th, 2007  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenix80
I am not sure if Syria got away with these stuff. Israel blew them up!

P80 has a valid point. Maybe this was the target of the Israelis not NK nuclear technology.

If so, you will notice that the Iraelis did not invade, but simply knocked the head off the pimple. Similar tactics perhaps to what we should have done with Sadman Hussein.
September 21st, 2007  
Spartacus
 
 
Spike

I agree with you on the oil part, particularly on the fact that it is a major part of Iraqs economy. However, I think that in order to be able to start the wells again, enough stability must be maintained to produce lasting results. Too much infrastructure without internal stability, and the whole system comes crashing down. Now if we wanted the oil, we could just set up massive rigs and pipelines and have the coalition and indigenous personnel guard those and not Baghdad.

I am trying to navigate the edge of the swords between political and military discussions.
September 21st, 2007  
A Can of Man
 
 
Basically they underestimated what would lie ahead after the invasion and kick out of Saddam
 


Similar Topics
A World Free Of Nuclear Weapons
Chemical Weapons' Disposal Delayed
WMD's found in Iraq
The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment
Shaking hands with Sadam Hussein