Saudi Arabia will be the final jigsaw in the puzzle as then they would control all the oil reserves
-----------------
No no. Saudi Arabia - which happens to be the worst regime in the region, is our vey very close ally - closet in the region in fact. The British economy was essentially tied to it during oil deals in the 70's.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Well Obama showed his colours in regard to us after the The Deepwater Horizon oil spill. He layed the blame squarely at our doorstep and kept refering to BP as BRITISH Petroleum in every press conference.
The fact is, the oil rig was American owned, American built and maintained and manned by American staff yet he managed to absolve his own country and people from any blame and pin the disaster on us.
They maybe the closest ally for now but I would not be surprised if Saudi's got double crossed in the way how Saddam was first supported and then toppled as he was of no more use.
it really isn't. you think the strategy was to wait for a terrible civil war to start, then do absolutely nothing for a year?
-----------------------
Actually yes. It weakens Assad and therefore weakens Iran's standing. US and UK policy has been to try and isolate Iran ever since 1979. Iran's 'successful defiance' - I'm quoting from internal documents - is seen as a threat to greater control of the region. Iran isn't about oil either (it was in 1953, however) before anyone mentions that. Iranian oil exports peaked in the mid to late 70's.
It depends where on the internet you got your information from. There are many reputable websites that you can cite as the source of your information without being penalised for it, at least in terms of reporting.
The internet is a valid source provided you don't get the information from wikipedia...
how did you do this may i ask? because most people nowadays seem to think that the internet is a valid source. it isn't.
---------------------------
Various ways - books, reading internal documents (declassified files) etc... There's excellent - and very dense work - on these subjects by some excellent authors and academics. It's about finding the right ones though, being able to differentiate between good evidence and nonsense... same with documentaries and journalists - the better stuff is almost exclusively from independent journalists and reporters. You have to understand the economic system and it's institutional complexion to understand the policies that come from it though, which is a separate topic of learning in and of itself.
The internet is interesting... It's a great resource if you know where to look. That's the problem though. It's at best time consuming if you don't know what you're looking for, and at worst an absolute minefield with a lot of absolute garbage. So you're partially right, the internet is certainly a double edged sword.
Wikipedia is such an odd site.
99.99999999% of it is probably the most accurate collection of information in the history of mankind but it's just that small percentile who ruin its credibility.
Wiki is fine if you use the references at the bottom. Open them, check that the site referenced is credible etc... If it is credible, you'll find the same information on many other credible sites with a simple google search. It is however, time consuming. But then understanding something in detail, with the best source is by its very nature a time consuming endeavor.
Off topic with syria but a response to a post.
Wikipedia is factually correct on 96.6% of everything that is had as of the 14th of august.
Checks and research is carried out on it bi monthly and users can amend or report anything they wish corrected.
With regards to syria.
UK has shot itself in the foot after decades of being usa's b1 tch because we can not just back away or not follow because we would only be seen as being part of the problem.
Sad fact is, politicians have and continue to turn their backs on the people that voted them into power.
it really isn't. you think the strategy was to wait for a terrible civil war to start, then do absolutely nothing for a year?
-----------------------
Actually yes. It weakens Assad and therefore weakens Iran's standing. US and UK policy has been to try and isolate Iran ever since 1979. Iran's 'successful defiance' - I'm quoting from internal documents - is seen as a threat to greater control of the region. Iran isn't about oil either (it was in 1953, however) before anyone mentions that. Iranian oil exports peaked in the mid to late 70's.
----
Do we have a moral obligation to intervene given the apparent use of chemical weapons?
**
I think that we might have a legal one
I am of the opinion that whoever is responsible for the chemical attack on children, should be he punished.
However, the evidence should be 100% irrefutible (not just based on common sence!), and the whole international community should deal with the situation, not just a few trigger happy countries.
So no, I would not want the UK to assits the US in any form of attack. I would be willing to assist the UN in taking action in whatever form that might be.
Saying that, care should also be taken on the effect of the punishment. Do we really want religious extremists to benifit from this?
I have seen enough video's of executions by extreem muslims (including beheading a Cristian priest with a knife by Dutch speaking jihadists, come over from Holland and/or Belgium to fight for the rebels) to be extremely wary of that.
I am of the opinion that whoever is responsible for the chemical attack on children, should be he punished.
***
I think that is an international commitment at the UN
US and UK policy has been to try and isolate Iran ever since 1979
=======
the ironic thing is that in 2001 when the war in Afghanistan started Mohammad Khatami actually shared intelligence information with the united states with regards to potential targets in Afghanistan (yes iran was against Osama bin laden too). that could have been the turnaround...then George bush ruined it with his axis of evil speech
Mohammad Khatami actually shared intelligence information with the united states with regards to potential targets in Afghanistan (yes iran was against Osama bin laden too). that could have been the turnaround
------
Not really, that was the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" politics at work.
Iran being following Shia doctrine and Al Qaeda being of Sunni faith were totally incompatible.
Iran didnt want al Qaeda overly influencing other Arab nations and neighbours.
This issue with Syria is strung with hypocrisy.
100000 civilians died before the 'alledge' use of chemical weapons (No public evidence = no evidence. I said the same about WMD in Iraq)
Now the red white and blue barmy army of the USA want to bomb a country that has already been bombed by both sides of this civil war.
Surely the people of this country deserve something more than more high explosives dropped on their soil.
A diplomatic solution to end the civil war is the only way to make it work because if one civilian is hurt/killed by a weapon of the intervention forces then we or them are no better than the two sides currently fighting it out.
Lots of good comments from BerbaKing.
Anyone who disputes that US and UK foreign policy is largely orientated towards protecting its economic interests and spheres of influence in strategic regions ought to look at where military adventures have been concentrated and which countries are the primary beneficiaries of military aid.
Consider all the humanitarian disasters in sub-Saharan Africa in which we haven't intervened, where intervention would have been simpler and less controversial. Consider the dictators and coups we have supported and massacres and gassings we have overlooked (and sometimes facilitated).
Those who don't think this is mainly about geopolitics need to furnish us with a convincing explanation for the pattern.
P.S. BerbaKing, I've read your last comment on the media thread and added some (less coherent) thoughts of my own.
Brilliant article and comments
At the end of the day its all about America controlling all of the oil transportation in the world and oil production in the middle east. Everything else will just be used as an excuse to aid them in their quest. They dont care about chemical weapons or anything else. They want the profits
As mentioned somewhere on this article Saudi Arabia is already under the US influence and at the moment its only Iran that refuses to give into the US.
If you look at a map of the Middle East and the positioning of American troops when they have invaded countries in recent memory. It surrounds Iran. But back to oil transportation. The Strait of Hormuz, which transports 40% of world's oil, mostly to the US and then China, Japan & Western Europe, is the biggest oil transportation checkpoint in the world. It is positioned right at the southern tip of Iran and next to Saudi Arabia.
Thats what they're after
Mohammad Khatami actually shared intelligence information with the united states with regards to potential targets in Afghanistan (yes iran was against Osama bin laden too). that could have been the turnaround
------
Not really, that was the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" politics at work
==========
and what about the offer to negotiate the nuclear issue and the two state solution? also he
"recognised" katsav of Israel. this will rightly go down as one of George bush's biggest missed opportunities.
Syria is important to the USA and Russia which is the only reason they are treating it like two dogs over a juicy bone. None of them gave a fig about Rwanda, Ethopia, Somalia or give a damn about Darfur where atrocities still go on. All the huffing and puffing rhetoric leaves me cold.
Assad is a dictator but I am not convinced the other side is any better. Neither side has a conscience about to those that suffer. Like the elderly lady on the TV this morning, left as the only survivor when her village was levelled or the thousand of kids left orphaned, homeless and with no chance of education to get them out of that hell hole. I find myself looking at a calendar more and more often to convince myself we are in the supposedly enlightened tolerant age of the 21st Century.
I have friends and family of all races, colours and creeds. Some of them are more connected to these events than others. Yet none of them can see violence by any party being a solution. They are certainly heartily sick of the USA always deciding to be the cop on the block and waver of the proverbial big stick.
Oil is the most important thing for the world as of today.
Saddam Hussein gassed the kurds in Halabja during the Iran-Iraq war. The US response was to protect him against censure in the UN and point the finger of blame at Iran. The UN punishment was to state that both sides must desist from using chemical weapons.
20 years later when their foreign policy objectives had changed the US decided that the halabja attack was actually a heinous crime. They used blatantly false 'intelligence' to 'prove' that he had WMD which they used as a convenient pretext to invade and depose him in pursuit of their foreign policy objectives (Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world).
The hypocrisy is nauseating
Using chemical weapons against anyone is a despicable crime and should be punished. If the international community decide to punish Assad I will be fully supportive but I won't support the US in pursuing their own naked self-interest.
Whilst I don't think the west should go in, the conspiracies of being motivated by oil/territory is rubbish. The cold war and fighting for control ended ages ago. United States should stop trying to police the world as it usually makes it worse. Libya is being proclaimed as a success, but it's far from it. There's absolutely no control in the area and we all know that US diplomat was killed in Libya not long ago and militants train and mobilise in that area to attack neighboring governments (see Mali) and innocent civilians (see Algeria oil hostage).
We in the West should recognise and accept that democracy does not work everywhere and trying to force it unto countries usually results in death of hundreds of thousands of lives to millions. Democracy is a natural process that eventually comes when the time is right.
This middle east rise against leaders/dictatorship (championed and praised by the western media) has been a total failure/disaster IMO. Egypt is falling into civil war and hundred of thousands (potentially millions ) have died in Syria.
Sign in if you want to comment
Anyone Following the Syria Crisis ?
Page 4 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9
posted on 10/9/13
Saudi Arabia will be the final jigsaw in the puzzle as then they would control all the oil reserves
-----------------
No no. Saudi Arabia - which happens to be the worst regime in the region, is our vey very close ally - closet in the region in fact. The British economy was essentially tied to it during oil deals in the 70's.
posted on 10/9/13
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/9/13
Well Obama showed his colours in regard to us after the The Deepwater Horizon oil spill. He layed the blame squarely at our doorstep and kept refering to BP as BRITISH Petroleum in every press conference.
The fact is, the oil rig was American owned, American built and maintained and manned by American staff yet he managed to absolve his own country and people from any blame and pin the disaster on us.
posted on 10/9/13
They maybe the closest ally for now but I would not be surprised if Saudi's got double crossed in the way how Saddam was first supported and then toppled as he was of no more use.
posted on 10/9/13
it really isn't. you think the strategy was to wait for a terrible civil war to start, then do absolutely nothing for a year?
-----------------------
Actually yes. It weakens Assad and therefore weakens Iran's standing. US and UK policy has been to try and isolate Iran ever since 1979. Iran's 'successful defiance' - I'm quoting from internal documents - is seen as a threat to greater control of the region. Iran isn't about oil either (it was in 1953, however) before anyone mentions that. Iranian oil exports peaked in the mid to late 70's.
posted on 10/9/13
It depends where on the internet you got your information from. There are many reputable websites that you can cite as the source of your information without being penalised for it, at least in terms of reporting.
The internet is a valid source provided you don't get the information from wikipedia...
posted on 10/9/13
how did you do this may i ask? because most people nowadays seem to think that the internet is a valid source. it isn't.
---------------------------
Various ways - books, reading internal documents (declassified files) etc... There's excellent - and very dense work - on these subjects by some excellent authors and academics. It's about finding the right ones though, being able to differentiate between good evidence and nonsense... same with documentaries and journalists - the better stuff is almost exclusively from independent journalists and reporters. You have to understand the economic system and it's institutional complexion to understand the policies that come from it though, which is a separate topic of learning in and of itself.
The internet is interesting... It's a great resource if you know where to look. That's the problem though. It's at best time consuming if you don't know what you're looking for, and at worst an absolute minefield with a lot of absolute garbage. So you're partially right, the internet is certainly a double edged sword.
posted on 10/9/13
posted on 10/9/13
Wikipedia is such an odd site.
99.99999999% of it is probably the most accurate collection of information in the history of mankind but it's just that small percentile who ruin its credibility.
posted on 10/9/13
Wiki is fine if you use the references at the bottom. Open them, check that the site referenced is credible etc... If it is credible, you'll find the same information on many other credible sites with a simple google search. It is however, time consuming. But then understanding something in detail, with the best source is by its very nature a time consuming endeavor.
posted on 10/9/13
Off topic with syria but a response to a post.
Wikipedia is factually correct on 96.6% of everything that is had as of the 14th of august.
Checks and research is carried out on it bi monthly and users can amend or report anything they wish corrected.
With regards to syria.
UK has shot itself in the foot after decades of being usa's b1 tch because we can not just back away or not follow because we would only be seen as being part of the problem.
Sad fact is, politicians have and continue to turn their backs on the people that voted them into power.
posted on 10/9/13
it really isn't. you think the strategy was to wait for a terrible civil war to start, then do absolutely nothing for a year?
-----------------------
Actually yes. It weakens Assad and therefore weakens Iran's standing. US and UK policy has been to try and isolate Iran ever since 1979. Iran's 'successful defiance' - I'm quoting from internal documents - is seen as a threat to greater control of the region. Iran isn't about oil either (it was in 1953, however) before anyone mentions that. Iranian oil exports peaked in the mid to late 70's.
----
posted on 10/9/13
Do we have a moral obligation to intervene given the apparent use of chemical weapons?
**
I think that we might have a legal one
posted on 10/9/13
I am of the opinion that whoever is responsible for the chemical attack on children, should be he punished.
However, the evidence should be 100% irrefutible (not just based on common sence!), and the whole international community should deal with the situation, not just a few trigger happy countries.
So no, I would not want the UK to assits the US in any form of attack. I would be willing to assist the UN in taking action in whatever form that might be.
Saying that, care should also be taken on the effect of the punishment. Do we really want religious extremists to benifit from this?
I have seen enough video's of executions by extreem muslims (including beheading a Cristian priest with a knife by Dutch speaking jihadists, come over from Holland and/or Belgium to fight for the rebels) to be extremely wary of that.
posted on 10/9/13
I am of the opinion that whoever is responsible for the chemical attack on children, should be he punished.
***
I think that is an international commitment at the UN
posted on 10/9/13
US and UK policy has been to try and isolate Iran ever since 1979
=======
the ironic thing is that in 2001 when the war in Afghanistan started Mohammad Khatami actually shared intelligence information with the united states with regards to potential targets in Afghanistan (yes iran was against Osama bin laden too). that could have been the turnaround...then George bush ruined it with his axis of evil speech
posted on 10/9/13
Mohammad Khatami actually shared intelligence information with the united states with regards to potential targets in Afghanistan (yes iran was against Osama bin laden too). that could have been the turnaround
------
Not really, that was the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" politics at work.
Iran being following Shia doctrine and Al Qaeda being of Sunni faith were totally incompatible.
Iran didnt want al Qaeda overly influencing other Arab nations and neighbours.
posted on 10/9/13
This issue with Syria is strung with hypocrisy.
100000 civilians died before the 'alledge' use of chemical weapons (No public evidence = no evidence. I said the same about WMD in Iraq)
Now the red white and blue barmy army of the USA want to bomb a country that has already been bombed by both sides of this civil war.
Surely the people of this country deserve something more than more high explosives dropped on their soil.
A diplomatic solution to end the civil war is the only way to make it work because if one civilian is hurt/killed by a weapon of the intervention forces then we or them are no better than the two sides currently fighting it out.
posted on 10/9/13
Lots of good comments from BerbaKing.
Anyone who disputes that US and UK foreign policy is largely orientated towards protecting its economic interests and spheres of influence in strategic regions ought to look at where military adventures have been concentrated and which countries are the primary beneficiaries of military aid.
Consider all the humanitarian disasters in sub-Saharan Africa in which we haven't intervened, where intervention would have been simpler and less controversial. Consider the dictators and coups we have supported and massacres and gassings we have overlooked (and sometimes facilitated).
Those who don't think this is mainly about geopolitics need to furnish us with a convincing explanation for the pattern.
P.S. BerbaKing, I've read your last comment on the media thread and added some (less coherent) thoughts of my own.
posted on 10/9/13
Brilliant article and comments
At the end of the day its all about America controlling all of the oil transportation in the world and oil production in the middle east. Everything else will just be used as an excuse to aid them in their quest. They dont care about chemical weapons or anything else. They want the profits
As mentioned somewhere on this article Saudi Arabia is already under the US influence and at the moment its only Iran that refuses to give into the US.
If you look at a map of the Middle East and the positioning of American troops when they have invaded countries in recent memory. It surrounds Iran. But back to oil transportation. The Strait of Hormuz, which transports 40% of world's oil, mostly to the US and then China, Japan & Western Europe, is the biggest oil transportation checkpoint in the world. It is positioned right at the southern tip of Iran and next to Saudi Arabia.
Thats what they're after
posted on 10/9/13
Mohammad Khatami actually shared intelligence information with the united states with regards to potential targets in Afghanistan (yes iran was against Osama bin laden too). that could have been the turnaround
------
Not really, that was the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" politics at work
==========
and what about the offer to negotiate the nuclear issue and the two state solution? also he
"recognised" katsav of Israel. this will rightly go down as one of George bush's biggest missed opportunities.
posted on 10/9/13
Syria is important to the USA and Russia which is the only reason they are treating it like two dogs over a juicy bone. None of them gave a fig about Rwanda, Ethopia, Somalia or give a damn about Darfur where atrocities still go on. All the huffing and puffing rhetoric leaves me cold.
Assad is a dictator but I am not convinced the other side is any better. Neither side has a conscience about to those that suffer. Like the elderly lady on the TV this morning, left as the only survivor when her village was levelled or the thousand of kids left orphaned, homeless and with no chance of education to get them out of that hell hole. I find myself looking at a calendar more and more often to convince myself we are in the supposedly enlightened tolerant age of the 21st Century.
I have friends and family of all races, colours and creeds. Some of them are more connected to these events than others. Yet none of them can see violence by any party being a solution. They are certainly heartily sick of the USA always deciding to be the cop on the block and waver of the proverbial big stick.
posted on 10/9/13
Oil is the most important thing for the world as of today.
posted on 10/9/13
Saddam Hussein gassed the kurds in Halabja during the Iran-Iraq war. The US response was to protect him against censure in the UN and point the finger of blame at Iran. The UN punishment was to state that both sides must desist from using chemical weapons.
20 years later when their foreign policy objectives had changed the US decided that the halabja attack was actually a heinous crime. They used blatantly false 'intelligence' to 'prove' that he had WMD which they used as a convenient pretext to invade and depose him in pursuit of their foreign policy objectives (Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world).
The hypocrisy is nauseating
Using chemical weapons against anyone is a despicable crime and should be punished. If the international community decide to punish Assad I will be fully supportive but I won't support the US in pursuing their own naked self-interest.
posted on 10/9/13
Whilst I don't think the west should go in, the conspiracies of being motivated by oil/territory is rubbish. The cold war and fighting for control ended ages ago. United States should stop trying to police the world as it usually makes it worse. Libya is being proclaimed as a success, but it's far from it. There's absolutely no control in the area and we all know that US diplomat was killed in Libya not long ago and militants train and mobilise in that area to attack neighboring governments (see Mali) and innocent civilians (see Algeria oil hostage).
We in the West should recognise and accept that democracy does not work everywhere and trying to force it unto countries usually results in death of hundreds of thousands of lives to millions. Democracy is a natural process that eventually comes when the time is right.
This middle east rise against leaders/dictatorship (championed and praised by the western media) has been a total failure/disaster IMO. Egypt is falling into civil war and hundred of thousands (potentially millions ) have died in Syria.
Page 4 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9