True, there's that giant pipeline that would be built from Saudi Arabia or Qatar to Turkey across Syria if the Sunni took over Assad, but that Moscow and Teheran don't want to see because it's against their commercial interests.
But is one pipe enough to start a war, especially now that the US have become more or less independent regarding oil ?
The pipeline alone possibly not, but combined with the other factors? Sure. Plus it's not only about the USA, even if the are obviously the biggest actor. I do believe that, since the start of the so-called Arab Spring (not the original root based revolts), we are witnessing the beginning of the Gulf Monarchies, mainly Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as relevant international actors, and their relevance in the Syrian war is unquestionable by now.
The point I'm trying to make is that if you believe Assad is some crazy extremist who seeks to murder all opposition in the cruelest way possible then fine, go on and believe that he used the CW's.
But what I'm leaning towards is that he is a logical person who wants to keep his status right now...and thus he has no point in using them.
When this started in 2011, obviously the Syrian regime had the upper hand. What did the Western world do? Give support to the rebels. Still, supplies were still no match against Assad. Then you start supplying weapons, however, Assad IS STILL winning the war. Is it really logical, for Assad to kill 100 people with a CW if he is winning, ofc not! That's why I believe that most likely another party used the CW, and VOILA, now the US has a reason to jump into the conflict.
Why do I believe that Assad is thinking logically? Recall Iraq. They denied use of weapons of mass destruction, but what came of the war...? Nothing. Assad, on the other hand, admits he has the CW's. But the chances that he uses them? Slim. There's just no point.
You have to respect their stockpile of CW's, any country (ehm ehm ISRAEL) can just blow the shit out of them at anytime.
baseballlover312, 06-03-14 : "Nuke Moscow...Don't worry Russia, we've got plenty of love to go around your cities"
Sarah Palin, 08-03-14 (CPAC, on Russian aggression) : "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke"
Big thanks to jdog for making this AMAZING userbar!
Levi4life wrote:
Now to flip the script. If Assad wouldn't use chemical weapons because it's not in his interest to do so, explain to me why Western governments are so keen to blow the shit out of Assad? What is their rationale?
Assad is an ally, possibly the most valuable, of Iran. An Iran-friendly government in Damasco, such as Assad's, is very important as well for the Iran-Hezbollah relationship, which is, right now, the most credible Shi'a alternative to a Muslim world dominated by the Sunni monarchies of the Persian Gulf, and keeping them happy is important for the Western powers due to that black thing the have in their underground.
Furthermore, Syria is the only Russian ally in in the Middle East, and it hosts their only Naval Base (not technically a naval base, but still important for them) in the Mediterranean Sea.
So, Assad falls, and two geopolitcal enemies of the US/NATO take a blow. Not bad, huh?
The timing doesn't add up.
For the first point, wouldn't this have been a great reason to get the cruise missile gravy train going 2 years ago? It's not as if chemical weapons use has given the US administration a popular mandate. Obama could have used RTP as an excuse two years ago, with the added bonus of undermining a more openly belligerent Iran.
For the second point, that's a great excuse for the cold war, or an administration filled with cold warriors, like Bush II (i.e. Conde Rice, Dick Cheney etc). I don't think this US administration is changing it's stance from "no, bad Assad, here's some more sanctions," to "time for some strikes" over a Russian naval base. They could have done that two years ago as well.
Proliferation seems like the biggest concern. International norms matter. If there is no response then that norm against use of WMD's is undermined. If there are no consequences, other regional powers are likely to pursue their own interests. This would mean chemical weapons programs in Lebanon, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan etc. What prevents many countries from pursuing WMD's is the knowledge that the cost might outstrip the utility. Utility goes up if you have a trigger happy neighbor. If the international community gives no shits then cost goes down. Therefore, the Assad regime demonstrating a willingness to use chemical weapons (or, as I have said is more likely to have occurred, a regiment acting without orders (which German intelligence says is the case)) could easily trigger an arms race in the Middle East.
The point I'm trying to make is that if you believe Assad is some crazy extremist who seeks to murder all opposition in the cruelest way possible then fine, go on and believe that he used the CW's.
His behavior up to this point hasn't convinced you he's out to murder the opposition?
But what I'm leaning towards is that he is a logical person who wants to keep his status right now...and thus he has no point in using them.
He has a surefire veto in the Security Council. This gives him considerably more leeway to do as he wants.
When this started in 2011, obviously the Syrian regime had the upper hand. What did the Western world do? Give support to the rebels. Still, supplies were still no match against Assad. Then you start supplying weapons, however, Assad IS STILL winning the war. Is it really logical, for Assad to kill 100 people with a CW if he is winning, ofc not! That's why I believe that most likely another party used the CW, and VOILA, now the US has a reason to jump into the conflict.
It was more than a thousand people. Assad has been propped up by Russia. Russia has been shipping weapons to Syria this whole time. Hezbollah is also chipping in. Your logic and his logic do not have to be the same thing. To maintain a base of power Assad only has to appeal to his constituent groups. The opposition are not one of those constituent groups. The opposition is a threat to his Alawite base. He can do what he wants, incurring little cost to his domestic support. Russia will ensure that he has guns and Russia will keep the UN from doing anything. The US has no appetite for a sustained unilateral military campaign. Limited strikes will do significant damage, but they won't be a death blow to the regime. Assad could very well get away with using chemical weapons and demonstrating a willingness to use CWs could intimidate people who would otherwise join the opposition. Your calculus and his calculus are very different. Best case scenario, he has international cover and he hurts the opposition. Worst case scenario, he has international cover, he takes a hit from NATO and is back on his feet a few weeks of months later and he hurts the opposition.
Again, you've not acknowledged my position, which is that the CW strike was launched by the regime, but not under the orders of Assad. A trigger happy regiment or division commander could have done it. Recent developments, in my opinion, indicate that this is likely the case. Moves towards ascendance to the CWC smells like damage control to me.
Edited by Levi4life on 13-09-2013 01:29
I don't want to blabber too much about what I believe the US should do, and I do believe that the German intelligence version is plausible, just that we don't have enough evidence at this point, I would leave it at 50 50.
baseballlover312, 06-03-14 : "Nuke Moscow...Don't worry Russia, we've got plenty of love to go around your cities"
Sarah Palin, 08-03-14 (CPAC, on Russian aggression) : "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke"
Big thanks to jdog for making this AMAZING userbar!
547984 wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is that if you believe Assad is some crazy extremist who seeks to murder all opposition in the cruelest way possible then fine, go on and believe that he used the CW's.
But what I'm leaning towards is that he is a logical person who wants to keep his status right now...and thus he has no point in using them.
It's not that. It's a war of terror logic he's leading. Which is logical since he's from a minority (the Alawites) and is only backed up by other minorities (Christians, etc.) who fear for their life should the Sunni get the power.
Assad leaves only two choices to Syrian people : either to support him without any question or protest, either to die in a horrible way.
And in terms of horror he won't reach any limit, see how he's constantly evolved towards more so far : sniper fire, shooting at demonstrations, armoured vehicles shooting at crowds, bombing rebel group, bombing civilians in pro-rebels cities, using CW in small quantities, now - even though it was more of a unilateral move by someone below him - a massive use of CW in one or two places. Each time he sees how it goes, what reactions happen, and if it's acceptable he pushes it a little further. That's why he should be stopped.
I would like to hear from you guys your opinions on why the NATO-aligned countries did get rid of Khadaffi straightaway during the Arab Spring, but why they still haven't done so with Assad after all this time.
When the Libya thing happened two years ago, I already said to myself: Why the heck are they not doing anything about Syria. Many more people are being massacred there than it Libya it seemed.
I guess it was about oil, but I don't know. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
ShortsNL wrote:
I would like to hear from you guys your opinions on why the NATO-aligned countries did get rid of Khadaffi straightaway during the Arab Spring, but why they still haven't done so with Assad after all this time.
When the Libya thing happened two years ago, I already said to myself: Why the heck are they not doing anything about Syria. Many more people are being massacred there than it Libya it seemed.
I guess it was about oil, but I don't know. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
As far is I know Syria has massive oil deposits as well - more than Libya actually (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...l_reserves). I believe Gadaffi was "chosen" partly due to symbolic reasons.
In the public he was much more high-profile than Al-Assad and eith his connection to the Lockerbie Bombing back in 1988 a lot of Western Leaders have held a grudge against him for many years. but have lacked the opportunity to really do anything. Even though he probably was a more suitable target than Sadam Hussein - Iraq just has more oil...
On top of that I'm fairly sure Gadaffi was originally brought to power with a lot of help from USA, which makes him really bad for publicity. That is not the case for Al-Assad.
Edited by Atlantius on 13-09-2013 11:20
That, but also it was Medvedev who was in charge in Moscow, and NATO was only authorized to protect the civilians. They went (much) beyond that, and kicked Gadaffi out, which made the Russians livid and the Chinese perplex. Those two felt fooled, and are now acting at UN so that it doesn't happen again, so Bashar is still in position.
Had it been Syria first then Libya, the Syrian regime might have been stroke already.
Though both countries produce oil, they're far from major actors.
ShortsNL wrote:
I would like to hear from you guys your opinions on why the NATO-aligned countries did get rid of Khadaffi straightaway during the Arab Spring, but why they still haven't done so with Assad after all this time.
When the Libya thing happened two years ago, I already said to myself: Why the heck are they not doing anything about Syria. Many more people are being massacred there than it Libya it seemed.
I guess it was about oil, but I don't know. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
As far is I know Syria has massive oil deposits as well - more than Libya actually (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...l_reserves). I believe Gadaffi was "chosen" partly due to symbolic reasons.
In the public he was much more high-profile than Al-Assad and eith his connection to the Lockerbie Bombing back in 1988 a lot of Western Leaders have held a grudge against him for many years. but have lacked the opportunity to really do anything. Even though he probably was a more suitable target than Sadam Hussein - Iraq just has more oil...
On top of that I'm fairly sure Gadaffi was originally brought to power with a lot of help from USA, which makes him really bad for publicity. That is not the case for Al-Assad.
Gadaffi wanted to stop using the dollar for oil transactions, just like Saddam. In fact Saddam did use the Euro for some time before the US invasion, iirc.
Levi4life wrote:
Proliferation seems like the biggest concern. International norms matter.
This may be the final trigger, but by itself, without the factors I mentioned, is nothing. Otherwise, where is the action against non-NPT countries like India, Pakistan or Israel who have dozens of nukes, which are way more dangerous than CWs?
kumazan: Wasn't actually aware of that aspect. A lot of hurt American pride in both Iraq and Libya then...
Aquarius: Though not a big oil producing country Syria still holds the 9th largest oil reserves in the world - around double the reserves of USA, which could make oil part of the motive in Syria, but not in Libya.
As I read ShortsNL's question it was more about why they chose Libya back then, when they could have just as easily chosen to invade Syria, since Al-Assad was just as bad as Gadaffi back then. You are probably right about why the Russians act as they do this time around, but I wouldn't mind hearing your thought on the original question: Why not Syria from the beginning?
Btw have your read Putins Opinion piece in the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opi...e&_r=0
If it wasn't so hard to believe that Putin was sincere I'd say he makes a lot of sense (assuming NYT doesn't print a letter from the Russian president without being pretty sure it's actually from the Russian president).
Atlantius, if the case of dropping the dollar in the oil trade was indeed a contributing factor, it wasn't pride that made the US respond, but financial motives instead.
If your currency is not used anymore for trading, it means a decreased demand for your currency and therefore a drop in the value of the dollar, hurting the financial position of the US.
Also, my question on Libya/Syria was mostly meant as If Libya, why not Syria as well?, and not necessarily Why not Syria instead?.
There's a lot of things that's bad for the economy - you don't see USA invading South-east Asia for producing stuff much cheaper than in the US, which is probably a bigger problem for the economy as it has a much larger direct influence on employment.
As for the question I think it's a matter of starting one war at a time - especially for a president already being criticized for using drones and not ending wars as fast as he had promised. It's hard to predict how it goes when you enter in the middle of civil war, so it's better to just focus on doing one right in stead of two half-hearted wars.
I would still like to hear people's thoughts on why, of all the countries they could have chosen in the Arab Spring, they decided that Libya was the place to intervene?
Atlantius wrote:
There's a lot of things that's bad for the economy - you don't see USA invading South-east Asia for producing stuff much cheaper than in the US, which is probably a bigger problem for the economy as it has a much larger direct influence on employment.
Wat. That's not bad for the economy. That's actually GOOD. That's why Western companies have moved much of their production to Asia, because of their cheap labor market which maximizes profit while keeping prices affordable for the average Joe. If iPhones were produced in the USA with materials extracted in Europe, no one would afford them.
Atlantius wrote:
There's a lot of things that's bad for the economy - you don't see USA invading South-east Asia for producing stuff much cheaper than in the US, which is probably a bigger problem for the economy as it has a much larger direct influence on employment.
Wat. That's not bad for the economy. That's actually GOOD. That's why Western companies have moved much of their production to Asia, because of their cheap labor market which maximizes profit while keeping prices affordable for the average Joe. If iPhones were produced in the USA with materials extracted in Europe, no one would afford them.
Try telling that to all the communities that have died due to loosing workplaces and all the people, who are now unemployed.
It's good for the economy of the bog companies, but bad for overall national economy as it reduces tax income from both citizens and companies (who now pay their taxes somewhere else) while increasing expenses related to people not being able to take care of themselves (social services, healthcare, increasing crime etc.).
Cheap iPhones are not necessarily good for local/national economy - people still need to have a job to be able to by it and large shares of the profit that comes from people buying it leaves the country again. Not good for the economy...
Edit: Detroit being the prime example in the US of what happens when Industries leave...
Edited by Atlantius on 13-09-2013 13:05
Atlantius wrote:
Try telling that to all the communities that have died due to loosing workplaces and all the people, who are now unemployed.
To be perfectly clear, I don't support this, but it is good for the economy as it works. Otherwise, the West wouldn't afford the living standard it has at the moment.
Atlantius wrote:
It's good for the economy of the bog companies, but bad for overall national economy as it reduces tax income from both citizens and companies (who now pay their taxes somewhere else) while increasing expenses related to people not being able to take care of themselves (social services, healthcare, increasing crime etc.).
But it doesn't. If you weren't producing cheap stuff in 3rd world countries, consumption would fall dramatically due to either lower wages or sky high prices. Either way, tax revenue is dramatically cut as well.
Atlantius wrote:
Cheap iPhones are not necessarily good for local/national economy - people still need to have a job to be able to by it and large shares of the profit that comes from people buying it leaves the country again. Not good for the economy...
Not cheap iPhones, but affordable prices are, otherwise consumption falls and you go Spain. Of course, people has to have a job, otherwise no one buys the crap you're producing in China, so you can't move all production to a foreign country.
The thing is that moving jobs out of the country is a bit like wetting your pants to get warm. Yes, you get more for your money in a short time, but then the developing countries start catching up and increase demand and thus prices of the goods. In the meantime we have lost the base of our economy and suddenly stand without anything except a high living standard that we no longer can afford. That's what happening all over the west at the moment.
To be perfectly clear I'm all for free trade and helping poor countries develop by trading with them, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into believing that moving production elsewhere benefits us on the long term. I have seen too many local communities die and/or struggle to survive because of that. Maybe we can get cheap stuff, but without anything to sell in return it won't benefit much in the long run.
kumazan wrote:
But it doesn't. If you weren't producing cheap stuff in 3rd world countries, consumption would fall dramatically due to either lower wages or sky high prices. Either way, tax revenue is dramatically cut as well.
Nothing reduces tax revenue as much as people not having a job though...
kumazan wrote:
Not cheap iPhones, but affordable prices are, otherwise consumption falls and you go Spain. Of course, people has to have a job, otherwise no one buys the crap you're producing in China, so you can't move all production to a foreign country.
Exactly my point. When we move the production businesses abroad we suddenly stand without actually making anything of value. We have some know-how, but that's easily obtained by the Chinese. Unfortunately companies tend to move everything once they have started. Quite often even after good years financially.
Take Detroit as the extreme example. It used to be a booming city of mainly car industries. But then the productions started being moved to cheaper places. IT was ok at first because the core remained and the companies stayed. But then slowly the other bits were moved to cheaper places as well and now a city with just under 2 million inhabitants in the 50's are left with 700.000 inhabitants and 16 % unemployment rates.
That what happens to the economy on the long term when businesses move to cheaper places.
Developed countries that see manufacturing shifted to countries were wages are low need to differentiate. It's that simple. Make high-tech stuff that requires workers to go through extensive training and you'll survive. If you can't compete on low wages you need to compete on knowledge, low production costs, or something else.
Also, on the really long long term, labour prices in Asia will go up as their standard of living goes up. Unskilled and Low-skilled mass-labour work will always flow to the country with the lowest wages until an equilibrium is met.
