Syrian Civil War (round 2)

[ErkutErdem]

https://twitter.com/MIG29_/status/987004919692562432
After the airstrikes he said "This aggression will only increase Syria and the Syrian people's determination to continue to fight and crush terror in every inch of the country." and he keeps doing so.

 

[kurczak]

Seeing this all play out, i can definitely see why these sorts of inexplicable NATO actions can make divorced dads believe in a Reptillian Deep State with extra (((matzos))). I mean the alternatives are:
a) I have no idea how geopolitics really works;
b) The US high command is comprised of upper class manchildren who nearly blundered us into nuclear annihilation several times;
c) There is no Reaganised "good guy" and "bad guy" to justify any action whatsoever, whether passive or aggressive or passive-aggressive, and cute smiling orphans are going to die horribly regardless of which action is taken;
d) All three, plus my ex-wife is dating a virile Spanish man who is a full foot taller than me and whose voice is several octaves deeper.

Being a brainwashed pawn in an interdimensional reptile dictatorship feels almost cosy in comparison, like some freudian manchild, pooling in his own fat, chained forever to the proverbial breasts.

America has never had any strategic partnership with Israel and has never gone to great lengths to support it. We have always been at war with Eurasia. Any statements to the contrary are literally Alex Jones.

 

[Heafodban]

So Ahrar al-Sham and al-Zenki just merged to create the Syrian Liberation Front. It's hard to keep track of all these names and mergers.

 

[Vissy]

This is pure speculation and opinion, so maybe I'm wrong, but my view is that the US and its allies have gained a reputation as the "world's police" who go into ****ty countries and try to clean up the mess when things start getting out of hand. If they allow war crimes to be committed (Assad gassing civilians) and do nothing, it makes them look bad for not putting a stop to it. So, perhaps they've at least got to be seen trying to do something.

Of course, the US only intervenes when their corporate interests are threatened. Nobody gave a flying **** about the Rwandan massacres, but Iraq and their oil? Hell yeah, let's bomb their cities to dust and fund their terrorists!

 

[Almalexia]

Well look out Poland because the poor old dame's got more oil than ****ing Syria does.

 

[Vissy]

I mean, that's Europe. But as long as it's Latin America, the Middle East or Africa, it's free range to **** everything up as much as they like for their own benefit as far as the military-industrial complex is concerned

 

[Temuzu]

Of course, the US only intervenes when their corporate interests are threatened. Nobody gave a flying **** about the Rwandan massacres, but Iraq and their oil? Hell yeah, let's bomb their cities to dust and fund their terrorists!

You say that like it's somehow wrong for the Yanks to act in their best interest. Why should they care about random people killing each other in random places when it doesn't affect America in any way?

I can't wait to see what happens if America becomes self-sufficient in their energy needs. It's going to be splendid isolation all over again, no more world police when there's nothing worth guarding.

 

[Calradianın bilgesi]

Oil market is global. Even if the US produces as much oil as it uses, if ISIS captures some territory and some oil wells are cut from the global supply, the US producers will still have to pay higher for energy.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Of course, the US only intervenes when their corporate interests are threatened. Nobody gave a flying **** about the Rwandan massacres, but Iraq and their oil? Hell yeah, let's bomb their cities to dust and fund their terrorists!

You say that like it's somehow wrong for the Yanks to act in their best interest. Why should they care about random people killing each other in random places when it doesn't affect America in any way?

Because the attack on #BasedAssad was clearly presented as a retaliation for chemical weapons attacks. Similarly the war in Iraq was "justified" by reports from a guy who based his accounts on a Nicholas Cage film because he had never seen chemical weapons before. Meanwhile there are identical incidents happening elsewhere right now but NATO doesn't even acknowledge them.

The US government can act in its best interests if it wants, whatever. I can't stop them. But hearing these blatantly false good guy/bad guy casus bellis every time NATO bombs cities to dust is rage-inducing.

 

[Almalexia]

I'll be the one to point out that of all the sectors of the Iraqi economy after the US invasion, the oil industry was the only one that wasn't privatized.

 

[rejenorst]

That's not for want of trying though. There was and may still be a push to privatize the oil but due to political sensitivity and Iraqi hostility to the idea they've mainly been unsuccessful. Order 39 managed to privatize everything else I guess.  Had they managed to get Chalabi in power things might have gone differently given that he was well disposed to the idea. 
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/feb/21/world/fg-iraqoil21

 

[Beny]

Why would they privatise and industry which is dominated by massive companies who hold enormous lobbying power in Washington?

 

[Almalexia]

Why would they privatise and industry which is dominated by massive companies who hold enormous lobbying power in Washington?

...you do know what privatization means, right?

Also @rejenorst interesting but given the US literally occupied the country and rebuilt (to an extent, heh) the government from the ground up, if it was the genuine intent of the war and if they really tried they could have privatized the oil industry easily. Oil is too simplistic an explanation for the US invasion and it's time we started looking beyond that meme if we want a more genuine understanding of where and why the US intervenes when it does. And furthermore accept that due to the nature of our leadership, the answer is often to large degree irrational in the long term strategic sense and rooted in opportunism and idealism. How could we sustain an actual coherent strategy beyond a 2-4 year election cycle with our political setup is a ****ing mess, nonetheless between administrations.

If you want my take, Bush Jr's invasion of Iraq, with Cheney behind the chair, was one of those rare points of genuine continuation of strategy between administrations aided by the fact that the continuation was based off the actions of none other than his fricking dad. Dynastic relations make for funny politics. Basically my theory is that it was all a bid to try and complete what Bush Sr. started, gain prestige and an easy victory just like Desert Storm over a diplomatically isolated and vulnerable target. Little did he know how much it would blow up in his face. But to me, the other theories that get bandied about like the classic oil invasion meme just doesn't add up.

 

[Vissy]

Of course, the US only intervenes when their corporate interests are threatened. Nobody gave a flying **** about the Rwandan massacres, but Iraq and their oil? Hell yeah, let's bomb their cities to dust and fund their terrorists!

You say that like it's somehow wrong for the Yanks to act in their best interest. Why should they care about random people killing each other in random places when it doesn't affect America in any way?

I can't wait to see what happens if America becomes self-sufficient in their energy needs. It's going to be splendid isolation all over again, no more world police when there's nothing worth guarding.

It is imperialism. It is 100% wrong.

The Rwandan genocides are relevant because this was an even worse situation than Syria, and yet it got absolutely no attention from the so-called world police. Why one should care about genocides? Well, human rights is one thing. If you believe in basic human rights, such as the right not to be rounded up and murdered for no reason, then you'd naturally care and want to do something about a genocide. You might not believe this, of course, but most people do.

To clarify, I'm not saying that the U.S invaded Iraq or participate in Syria just because of oil. I believe they participate there because ultimately the neocons are imperialists, and because continued war is in the interests of the military-industrial complex, and a multitude of other reasons. I'd rank the military-industrial complex as the biggest factor, though.

 

[Beny]

Why would they privatise and industry which is dominated by massive companies who hold enormous lobbying power in Washington?

...you do know what privatization means, right?

Lol. Was clearly too early in the morning to be reading properly.

The Rwandan genocides are relevant

Well, not really in my opinion. Rwanda was a political and social mess at the time of the genocide, so didn't really pose much of a threat to the geopolitical status quo. Whereas Iraq was stable (totalitarian of course) so the risks and consequences of invasion are very different.

 

[rejenorst]

Also @rejenorst interesting but given the US literally occupied the country and rebuilt (to an extent, heh) the government from the ground up, if it was the genuine intent of the war and if they really tried they could have privatized the oil industry easily.

Iraq spent 30 years under the motto of Arab oil for Arabs and there was fierce resistance to the idea of privatization of the oil industry. When the US removed the ruling party and disbanded the Iraqi army they literally shot themselves in the foot and had to spend over a decade trying to stabilize a country that to this day is still reeling from a brutal insurgency, and now has a government that is not on unfriendly terms with neighbors we consider enemies, while it just barely tolerates a US presence (having called for them to leave on several occasions). While yes they could have done so, I'd say it would have come at a tremendously unnecessary risk.

Not only to themselves but to the companies that would have had to operate there. The army had to pretty much provide security for most operations outside the green zone as it was. It would be much more advisable to wait until the US has built some sort of trust with the local government which I think is the direction they ended up going with.

Oil is too simplistic an explanation for the US invasion and it's time we started looking beyond that meme if we want a more genuine understanding of where and why the US intervenes when it does. And furthermore accept that due to the nature of our leadership, the answer is often to large degree irrational in the long term strategic sense and rooted in opportunism and idealism. How could we sustain an actual coherent strategy beyond a 2-4 year election cycle with our political setup is a **** mess, nonetheless between administrations.

If you want my take, Bush Jr's invasion of Iraq, with Cheney behind the chair, was one of those rare points of genuine continuation of strategy between administrations aided by the fact that the continuation was based off the actions of none other than his fricking dad. Dynastic relations make for funny politics. Basically my theory is that it was all a bid to try and complete what Bush Sr. started, gain prestige and an easy victory just like Desert Storm over a diplomatically isolated and vulnerable target. Little did he know how much it would blow up in his face. But to me, the other theories that get bandied about like the classic oil invasion meme just doesn't add up.

I agree that its an oversimplified explanation, I think there were a lot of interested parties all with overlapping interests be it personal/financial/ideological/strategic, but while oil may not have been the only motivator I feel it was a powerful one nonetheless for some if not many of the parties involved.

 

[Vissy]

Why would they privatise and industry which is dominated by massive companies who hold enormous lobbying power in Washington?

...you do know what privatization means, right?

Lol. Was clearly too early in the morning to be reading properly.

The Rwandan genocides are relevant

Well, not really in my opinion. Rwanda was a political and social mess at the time of the genocide, so didn't really pose much of a threat to the geopolitical status quo. Whereas Iraq was stable (totalitarian of course) so the risks and consequences of invasion are very different.

Iraq was a more calculated decision and more "controllable" (though that means very little as we came to see), yes. I wasn't really making a practical argument there - I was making a moral argument to point out the hypocrisy of the western world and the shallowness of our stated motivations. I want to say that many, if not most, of US foreign wars (and their outsourced wars via rebels) are acts of imperialism, just in the modern age.

 

[Adorno]

... Basically my theory is that it was all a bid to try and complete what Bush Sr. started, gain prestige and an easy victory just like Desert Storm over a diplomatically isolated and vulnerable target. Little did he know how much it would blow up in his face. But to me, the other theories that get bandied about like the classic oil invasion meme just doesn't add up.

It could also be about many other things. Apart from oil it was a complete privatisation of the country
where western companies (mainly US based) were to profit. Tariffs were slashed, taxes flattened and the economy opened.
The war was also private with "private corporations becoming the second biggest contributor to coalition forces in Iraq after the Pentagon".
The installed government was pro USA of course, and the ideologists behind the war thought democracy would magically rise from the neo-liberal rubbles.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/10/politics.iraq
https://www.erim.eur.nl/fileadmin/default/content/erim/research/centres/scope/research/issue_papers/state/war%20profits%20from%20the%20iraq%20war_%20the%20dirty%20games%20of%20contr1.pdf

 

[Almalexia]

Let me express my skepticism of the value of the non-oil economic sector of the Iraqi economy vis-a-vis even the projected initial cost of the invasion, nonetheless the unexpectedly prolonged occupation.

Tho I of course share the concern of the growing role and influence of corporate armed forces and it's possible impact on the future.

 

[Vissy]

Let me express my skepticism of the value of the non-oil economic sector of the Iraqi economy vis-a-vis even the projected initial cost of the invasion, nonetheless the unexpectedly prolonged occupation.

Tho I of course share the concern of the growing role and influence of corporate armed forces and it's possible impact on the future.

It's not the United States that stand to profit from Iraq's resources, it's the arms companies and other corporations that feed both sides of the conflict.