Syria - What happens next?

[leicsmac]

They wouldn't be any different , the orders are coming from above them .

It's the only logical explanation. 

 

Not saying I do, Kerry is the one saying it though.

 

You are right mind.

 

Yeah, it's a sad reality.

[breadandcheese]

It's rather astounding that John Kerry can actually stand up there and expect one to believe anything he actually says after what we have had revealed to us over the last few years regarding recent American foreign policy.

 

It's not just America.  Our intelligence agencies, the French, the German have all concluded it was Assad.  The Arab League have seen the intelligence and agree with the assessment that Assad was responsible.  

[Rincewind]

It's not just America.  Our intelligence agencies, the French, the German have all concluded it was Assad.  The Arab League have seen the intelligence and agree with the assessment that Assad was responsible.  

Not saying its wrong but I get a feeling of Deja Vu.

[dogsby]

Humanitarian my arse ,we would be doing the Saudi's dirty work as usual by removing Assad and setting up a Saudi backed terrorist friendly state.those ****ers have been backing these 'rebels' with weapons and support from day one and there are plenty of sources out there pointing towards their involvement in supplying gas to rebel groups.can't believe sensible people are falling for the government line,fool me once and all that.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

The two sides are as bad as each other, so how can we choose one over the other. Using chemicals is the evil of all evils. The rebels would probably do likewise, given the opportunity.

 

What a sick world we still live in.

[Captain...]

It's not just America. Our intelligence agencies, the French, the German have all concluded it was Assad. The Arab League have seen the intelligence and agree with the assessment that Assad was responsible.

Based on what evidence? The UN inspectors have been over there for one reason and one reason only, and that is to find proof that chemical weapons were used. That has now been proven, but there has been no attempt to ascertain by whom.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn there are spies in Syria, but after having been lied to before forgive for wanting something a bit more concrete than 'our intelligence agencies know that Assad did it'.

[sphericalfox]

This conflict nothing but control over a gas and oil pipeline. The west and most of Europe want the rebels to win, thus a government can be put in place that will allow a pipeline that won't be put in place and owned by the Russians and Iranians, and of course the Assad regime. The Russians will defy the West in every way possible as they invested a considerable amount of money so as their aims can be achieved. The only true weapon the Russians can use against us, is a proxy war in Syria, with them providing the weapons needed for the Syrian army, and then putting a block or reduction on gas imports into Europe, should things get very serious. Time to invest in some serious winter woolies boys and girls, and cut back on eating food, as prices will sky rocket and something will need to give.

[Jon the Hat]

Honestly I dont believe the west really believes they will get a pipeline if Assad goes.  the point of the attack which the US and France will shortly carry out is to visibly punish the use of Chemical weapons, to discourage future use.  There is nothing any country can do to stop the shit storm in Syria - this one is going to go one for at least another decade - and they all know it.  Honestly there is no way the US is going to take out Assad.  They will carefully support selected opposition forces and see how the wind blows.

[sphericalfox]

Honestly I dont believe the west really believes they will get a pipeline if Assad goes.  the point of the attack which the US and France will shortly carry out is to visibly punish the use of Chemical weapons, to discourage future use.  There is nothing any country can do to stop the shit storm in Syria - this one is going to go one for at least another decade - and they all know it.  Honestly there is no way the US is going to take out Assad.  They will carefully support selected opposition forces and see how the wind blows.

 

Whether or not with a regime change there is no pipeline for the West, the important thing for Europe is that Russia doesn't get one. We're held for ransom as it is.

 

I agree this isn't going to end anytime soon. I did start a Syria thread a long while back about this, and no one responded. <boo-hoo me>

[breadandcheese]

The thing I don't get about this pipeline conjecture is why doesn't the pipeline go up through Iraq, through Turkey and bypass Syria.  Seems a lot of effort to go to regime change just so the pipe can go through Syria when it doesn't need to.  It's a bit like going to the effort of wiping out Birmingham to ensure a traffic free M6, when you could just pay a fiver to take the M6 toll.

[Jon the Hat]

The thing I don't get about this pipeline conjecture is why doesn't the pipeline go up through Iraq, through Turkey and bypass Syria.  Seems a lot of effort to go to regime change just so the pipe can go through Syria when it doesn't need to.  It's a bit like going to the effort of wiping out Birmingham to ensure a traffic free M6, when you could just pay a fiver to take the M6 toll.

 

Think of the additional benefits though!  No Birmingham.. This could be a game changer!!

[sphericalfox]

The thing I don't get about this pipeline conjecture is why doesn't the pipeline go up through Iraq, through Turkey and bypass Syria.  Seems a lot of effort to go to regime change just so the pipe can go through Syria when it doesn't need to.  It's a bit like going to the effort of wiping out Birmingham to ensure a traffic free M6, when you could just pay a fiver to take the M6 toll.

 

That's a very good question. But as there is a serious contingent in Iraq who are still a little miffed, for some invasion or other, a pipeline through their country probably wouldn't last long. Not saying that this might not be the case in Syria, but as with any war, the heavy investment in armaments is never spent without some resource or return on investment. This isn't a moral crusade despite the media's line. It's amazing that not one media outlet is discussing this element of the story.

[breadandcheese]

That's a very good question. But as there is a serious contingent in Iraq who are still a little miffed, for some invasion or other, a pipeline through their country probably wouldn't last long. Not saying that this might not be the case in Syria, but as with any war, the heavy investment in armaments is never spent without some resource or return on investment. This isn't a moral crusade despite the media's line. It's amazing that not one media outlet is discussing this element of the story.

 

Your argument is non-nonsensical. Some groups in Iraq, who are angry at the US, would blow up the pipeline, but groups in Syria, who would be angry at the US, would do nothing?

[sphericalfox]

Your argument is non-nonsensical. Some groups in Iraq, who are angry at the US, would blow up the pipeline, but groups in Syria, who would be angry at the US, would do nothing?

 

did I say that? No I didn't. Read my post again.

[breadandcheese]

did I say that? No I didn't. Read my post again.

 

Your implication is that a pipeline would be safer passing through Syria, although you try and clarify that with there might be people miffed in Syria.  You then say that arms spending is always made with a return on investment being made.

 

So your implication to me is that the US is prepared to spend the money on bombing Syria, to affect regime change for the building of a pipeline, because the pipeline would be safer in Syria than Iraq.  However, the reason I find your argument false is that the reasons you give for why an Iraqi pipeline would not be a good idea, would be far worse in Syria, due to the greater complexity of the situation.

[sphericalfox]

Your implication is that a pipeline would be safer passing through Syria, although you try and clarify that with there might be people miffed in Syria.  You then say that arms spending is always made with a return on investment being made.

 

So your implication to me is that the US is prepared to spend the money on bombing Syria, to affect regime change for the building of a pipeline, because the pipeline would be safer in Syria than Iraq.  However, the reason I find your argument false is that the reasons you give for why an Iraqi pipeline would not be a good idea, would be far worse in Syria, due to the greater complexity of the situation.

 

The prevention of a Russian/Iranian pipeline is just as big a win I'd say for Europe .I also didn't say there wouldn't be opposition to a pipeline in Syria. Like I said there is going to be no pipeline either way for a very long time. A pipeline through Iraq for me is more likely now or in the near future is going to draw serious aggression, say than a potential pipeline 15-20 years down the line in Syria, should the regime change. This isn't a non-sensical notion. 

[Rincewind]

It's aggro diplomacy. I can't see any nominees for a Nobel peace Prize coming out of this.

[Guest MattP]

It's aggro diplomacy. I can't see any nominees for a Nobel peace Prize coming out of this.

 

One already has.

[Jon the Hat]

It's aggro diplomacy. I can't see any nominees for a Nobel peace Prize coming out of this.

 

Standing back and letting the use of chemical weapons go unpunished is not exactly in the spirit of peace is it?

[Rincewind]

One already has.

Not for the present round of schoolboy shenanigans surely?

[Webbo]

Whether or not with a regime change there is no pipeline for the West, the important thing for Europe is that Russia doesn't get one. We're held for ransom as it is.

 

I agree this isn't going to end anytime soon. I did start a Syria thread a long while back about this, and no one responded. <boo-hoo me>

So what you're saying if I'm getting you right is Russia want a pipeline to Europe so they can threaten not to sell us their gas and Europe doesn't want a pipeline so that we can't buy gas from Russia?

[lavrentis]

[Guest MattP]

 

Pretty embarrassing listening to the Long Legged Mack Daddy today trying to put his case forward in front of a room full of of about 25 journalists who seemed more star struck than asking questions.

 

He's going in, we all know it, he has no real evidence that the regime did it but he's fairly certain, it's clearly illegal given it probably won't be going before the UN Security council and I'm still perplexed as to why at this point in time why he is actually doing it.

[sphericalfox]

So what you're saying if I'm getting you right is Russia want a pipeline to Europe so they can threaten not to sell us their gas and Europe doesn't want a pipeline so that we can't buy gas from Russia?

 

No. What I'm saying is that Russian wants the monopoly of the gas market. Shit, it has most of the gas. Russia has plenty of pipelines into Europe, but it doesn't want the likes of the Saudis and Qataris putting a pipeline into Europe through Syria. It's not rocket science. What it can do in the meanwhile if the US and France etc, and whomever else wants to get involved in Europe, is drip the gas that it does feed currently into Europe in retribution.

[Webbo]

No. What I'm saying is that Russian wants the monopoly of the gas market. Shit, it has most of the gas. Russia has plenty of pipelines into Europe, but it doesn't want the likes of the Saudis and Qataris putting a pipeline into Europe through Syria. It's not rocket science. What it can do in the meanwhile if the US and France etc, and whomever else wants to get involved in Europe, is drip the gas that it does feed currently into Europe in retribution.

Well that makes slightly more sense but we get our gas from Qatar via tanker or from Norway so there's no need for a pipeline. It's a reasonable theory but I doubt if there's much in it. More likely the Russians want to keep their naval base in Syria and don't want a pro western govt to throw them out.