Skip to main content

View Diary: Syria: Conspiracy Theories and Disaster Hyperbolism (245 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Any pipeline from the Gulf to Europe doesn't need (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, petral

    to be routed through Syria..

    And why would our oil industry lobby for that anyway, since they pretty much lost out to Asian state oil companies in Iraq?

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 05:35:07 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  It's not going to Europe (9+ / 0-)

      It's going to a Syrian port from which it will be shipped in tankers.

      In regards to oil companies, this would let less oil on the market and so prices would stay up. In terms of national interest it is also about control of oil routes as much as anything else. If a friendly regime were in Syria then it would be easier to do things like embargoes on other countries, etc.

      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

      by AoT on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 05:41:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Doesn't make sense either. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        petral, poco

        That can be routed through Turkey just as easily to the Mediterranean , too.

        Sorry, but to state that Obama is going to strike Syria because of some gas or oil pipeline that can be routed elsewhere is just pretty ludicrous, especially since the administration is well aware of the fact that a regime change could very well lead to an even unfriendlier regime and a break-up of the country, which would make any potential pipeline through Syria even more problematic.

        The fact on Syria is that a wave of social and generational change rolled through the Arab World.  It managed to unseat dictatorships in numerous countries, especially in those where a vast majority of the citizenship was against the regimes and the population is fairly homogenous, namely in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya.

        When it arrived in Syria, however, it arrived in a country with a much more complex mosaic of ethnicities and religions, where the sectarian and ethnic and religious divides were inflamed by the Regime's violent reaction and the violent counterreaction of the Sunni rebels, ie. it became a population pretty strongly divided in all kinds of ways.

        Nothing short of a full scale invasion with massive amounts of boots on the ground or some peace agreement where all parties come together will bring enough semblance of stability to Syria for pipelines to be built, and both of those scenarios would take lots of time and the outcome would be highly questionable.

        Making this all about some pipeline denies the reality of the actual situation in Syria, the reality that chemical weapons are being used in Syria and that Syria has lots of chemical weapons, and the fact that the Syrian people consist of a mosaic of different people with different desires and goals.

        "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

        by Lawrence on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 03:51:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're not listening to the point here (0+ / 0-)

          What I'm saying is that the oil companies want insecurity and do not want this pipeline because it means higher oil prices. Especially Western oil companies because the oil going through this pipeline would not be from Western oil companies. And these forces have been pushing for intervention for a while now.

          How is it that suddenly oil just doesn't matter at all in the US plans to go to war. I mean, it certainly isn't the only thing that plays a role, but it is part of it. You seem desperate to claim that there is absolutely nothing at play here except chemical weapons, which seems pathetically naive given the history of US interventions.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:02:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I was going to respond above, but I saw AoT (6+ / 0-)

      had already.

      I don't pretend to be an expert in any of these things, but the less oil which flows through the Straits of Hormuz, the less we have to worry about any "bad actor" problems with Iran.

      Pumping Iraqi oil through Syria to tankers on the Mediterranean (and perhaps oil from another country or two would make at least that oil flow less vulnerable to disruption.

      I don't pretend to hold any special CT information about that. It simply makes sense. We've long maintained a very strong naval presence near the Straits, including mine sweepers, to keep Iran from shutting down that narrow channel and choking off vast amounts of oil.

      We've still got to deal with (we are told) the looming nuclear problem with Iran. Reducing vulnerability in the area makes sense from a planning perspective.  Not CT.  Just makes sense.  

      I make no claim as to whether that is anyone's secret plan or whatever.

      "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

      by YucatanMan on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 08:17:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That suggests that the US would be in favor of (0+ / 0-)

        building the pipeline, as it would reduce Iran's ability to cut off oil supplies in the event of hostilities.

        •  Or in favor of a regime change in Syria (5+ / 0-)

          so that we would control all of the oil routes. Syria is a strong ally of Iran so having the pipeline undertheir control would mean that Iran would still have the ability to cut of supply if they were attacked. So it makes sense that the US wouldn't want an unfriendly power to have control over that.

          In my mind it is more a matter of oil companies wanting conflict in the region so that prices are driven up. Or at least being pressured by the market to act in that manner. This is what hapens when profit is the most important thing, various forces are going to push to kill people so thatthey can make more money. No conspiracy theory needed.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 10:07:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I wrote a long comment about all the various (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tweedledee5, ukit, mickT, JVolvo

          pipelines which exist already, which are expected to be built, which are threatened by the fighting, which are in bad condition and need to be rebuilt, the competition for whether a pipeline crossing Syria begins in Iran or Qatar, etc. (The USA favors the Qatar origin; Russia the Iran origin, etc).

          There's simply a ton of information out there. The fact that Syria doesn't produce much oil doesn't mean that Syria is a complete non-player as far as angling for advantage in the global oil supply. Iraqi oil fields are not far away, for one thing.  It would provide a Mediterranean port for tankers, rather than the Persian Gulf, for another.

          On and on.  It's one of those things Biden might call "a Big F...g Deal."

          Oh and the comment? Lost it when the bored cat jumped on the keyboard for attention.

          "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

          by YucatanMan on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 11:21:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  You're assuming that a new regime would (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YucatanMan

        be any better for us than an old regime.

        With all the Jihadists in Syria, that seems kind of unlikely, no?  And even if there is regime change, if you look at the ethnic make-up and where the different ethnicities are located, it is unlikely that this new Sunni regime would control the coast, as well.

        In fact, regime change could make it even more difficult for a pipeline through Syria to be successful.

        It makes sense on paper only, and only if one discounts the actual country and people living in the country and the actual situation there.

        "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

        by Lawrence on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 04:01:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, I don't assume that but (0+ / 0-)

          Villagers are known for doing exactly what you state: acting on things which only make sense on paper without considering the realities of the region.

          I'd offer all our adventures over the past dozen years as evidence.

          What I think is that Washington believes they can get something decent out of regime change.... even as unlikely as that is. Hubris knows no shortages in Washington.

          "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

          by YucatanMan on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:15:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  no wonder you're confused (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JVolvo, ukit

      you have no idea what you are talking about.

      These are NATURAL gas pipelines.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site