Thread: Syria

Where did I say that I thought Syria has a lot of oil? I know perfectly well that it doesn't.

What Ramil was hinting at, is that Syria is a transit country, i.e. oil pipelines are running THROUGH it. Same as Ukraine incidentally - and Western interests have an agenda there too.

The fact that Syria is an oil transit country makes it strategically interesting, although Ramil does not develop his theory in detail. Syria itself is at a very strategic position in the Middle East, which is the reason it was a major piece on the chessboard in the Cold War.

And yes - Europe is behind this just as much as the USA / NATO, because obviously that is the end destination of the oil, so I am not arguing with that either.

The BBC usually tries to pretend being un-nuanced and give both sides of the story. But in this, they are completely black and white. Al-Assad is evil, etc etc.
Funnily enough they seem to have completely forgotten that only a couple of years ago, they were featuring Syria in travelling programs as the coolest destination in the Arab world, the "Syrian school" reality show which showed Syrian society in a very favourable light - include the respect of everyone for Al-Assad.... Not to mention taking the Top Gear show to Syria.
But now it is suddenly all evil!

Watch / read channels like Russia Today which shows that this is NOT the full story - the Christian population for example, largely supports Al-Assad staying in power and several cities are completely behind him.

The fact that Syria has CLEARLY been flagged by the USA as "evil" for decades (Was specifically mentioned in Bush' "Axis of Evil" speech) AND was named in the infamous General Wesley Clark video, shows that the USA very much has an agenda in Syria.

I am strongly against US war mongering, sinister agendas, propaganda wars and the like. I don't see what the goings on in Syria has ANYTHING to do with the USA and very little to do with Europe or Russia. The only countries that has any business having an opinion are the neighbours, so Turkey's opinions I recognize as relevant.

But do bear in mind that Turkey is a NATO member and will pretty much toe the US line by default. In addition, Turkey is trying to score points with the EU as part of its (unsuccessful to date) quest to join the EU. Taking a stand against Syria at the moment, is very much the politically correct thing to do in light of the NATO membership and EU ambitions, so you should not take that too seriously - there is nothing to say what the opinion of regular Turks is. The Kurdish population (a large part of Turkey) have been pro-Syria in the past, since Kurds were treated much better in Syria than in Turkey.

The bit that I am not understanding, is WHY the USA had Syria on its invasion list for almost a decade, and WHY it was listed as being "Evil".

Ramil seems to believe it's got something to do with oil transit and the city of Homs, but I do not quite get his complete point.
Anixx is suggesting that it is because Syria is one of the last (nominally) socialist countries in the Middle East / Arab world - a country that used to be aligned towards the USSR in the cold war days.

Syria is significantly less evil than lots of states in Africa, and a couple in South America. It had an essentially social democratic government that tried to provide the basic services for all, at a decent level. No doubt it had many faults and was probably to harsh on the opposition, but Syria was opening up and trying to modernise.

Al Bashir is a dentist who has worked in the UK and is married to a British woman who used to be a derivatives trader in London. We are not talking about Saddam Hussein here at all, but a man who inherited a backwards country from his father and has tried to reform while keeping it all together and preventing the minorities off each others throat.

And guess what..... suddenly every Arab speaking asylum seeker in Western Europe is "Syrian" (some of course, really are...) and hence automatically granted asylum. Then all they need to do is quickly have a child while they are here, and they're in for good. Just what we need.

But still, everything was fine with the old regime, why would the west want a new unstable goverment controlling it? And of course the BBC is slanted (which they were with Libya also).

I think you're neglecting the fact that atrocities ARE being commited in Syria, by both sides. I can't understand how you could simply ignore it, especially since it has the possiblity to spill over (which it's already done in Lebanon).

Look at Russia, why doesn't Russia want sanctions on Syria? Because Russia doesn't want people to interfere with it's own internal affairs (and plus Syria is one of Russia's only Arab allies, money, weapons, oil).

Originally Posted by Astrum

But still, everything was fine with the old regime, why would the west want a new unstable goverment controlling it? And of course the BBC is slanted (which they were with Libya also).

Because a turmoil in Syria won't allow any other country to buy Syrian oil. A weak pet government will suit perfectly.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Because a turmoil in Syria won't allow any other country to buy Syrian oil. A weak pet government will suit perfectly.

I see your point, but I have to disagree. If regime change really favored the U.S., we probably would already have invaded, but we havn't yet.

Originally Posted by Astrum

I see your point, but I have to disagree. If regime change really favored the U.S., we probably would already have invaded, but we havn't yet.

.
A third simultaneous war, under the current economic conditions?

I think the USA thinks it's both cheaper, less controversial and simpler to sit on the sidelines and manipulate things instead. I.e. provide money, weapons and the right type of publicity to the rebels.

Plus - Syria has a not insubstantial army AND at the moment neither Russia nor China would approve of an invasion and might possibly start supporting the other side. Good, I think. The USA has been totally out of control for the last 20 years with a marked escalation after 9-11. I am relieved that someone is finally taking a stand.

I am not in the least convinced that the current regime there is particularly evil or corrupt, compared with other states in the Middle East. I do not necessarily think that it would benefit regular people in Syria that Assad stepped down, the country descended into chaos for a couple of years and another authocratic but pro-West figure appeared as president.

Since they have a lot of socialism going on there, the first thing that would happen is that state owned property this would be privatised and bought by foreign powers, unemployment rise.. Everyone in Europe and Russia can probably agree that rapid privatisation is daylight robbery that does not lead to an improvement of anything. Some people would be worse off than today, and a small group significantly richer. The oil industry and infrastructure would be controlled from abroad, at the moment it is controlled by the state in Syria.

As it is today, I understand they have been doing a sort of "perestroika" for about 10 years or so at the initiative of al Assad. Seems much more sensible to let that run its course and gradually make changes in the direction that the majority want. I re-iterate that I have seen several interviews etc with al-Assad and he is a well educated person who spent many years in London and has started opening up the country and relaxing things from the moment he took over after his father. He is far from a hard liner or extremist of any kind.

Originally Posted by Hanna

.
A third simultaneous war, under the current economic conditions?

I think the USA thinks it's both cheaper, less controversial and simpler to sit on the sidelines and manipulate things instead. I.e. provide money, weapons and the right type of publicity to the rebels.

Plus - Syria has a not insubstantial army AND at the moment neither Russia nor China would approve of an invasion and might possibly start supporting the other side. Good, I think. The USA has been totally out of control for the last 20 years with a marked escalation after 9-11. I am relieved that someone is finally taking a stand.

I am not in the least convinced that the current regime there is particularly evil or corrupt, compared with other states in the Middle East. I do not necessarily think that it would benefit regular people in Syria that Assad stepped down, the country descended into chaos for a couple of years and another authocratic but pro-West figure appeared as president.

Since they have a lot of socialism going on there, the first thing that would happen is that state owned property this would be privatised and bought by foreign powers, unemployment rise.. Everyone in Europe and Russia can probably agree that rapid privatisation is daylight robbery that does not lead to an improvement of anything. Some people would be worse off than today, and a small group significantly richer. The oil industry and infrastructure would be controlled from abroad, at the moment it is controlled by the state in Syria.

As it is today, I understand they have been doing a sort of "perestroika" for about 10 years or so at the initiative of al Assad. Seems much more sensible to let that run its course and gradually make changes in the direction that the majority want. I re-iterate that I have seen several interviews etc with al-Assad and he is a well educated person who spent many years in London and has started opening up the country and relaxing things from the moment he took over after his father. He is far from a hard liner or extremist of any kind.

Neither of us can honestly say what would be better for the Syrian people. All we have to go by is what reporters tell us. From what I've read/seen in videos, I think it's pretty safe to assume that the current regime HAS done some pretty awful things to people. That's not to say that the rebels are angles, of course they're not.

I don't think that Syrian oil has much to do with this at all. On the list of top oil producers, Syria is about number 33, which is not all that high. Any oil coming from them has a negligible effect on the world market. How could it be in western interests to have Al-Qaeda acting in Syria? Sectarian violence is in one's best interest. What about Turkey? I think of all the NATO memebrs, Turkey is the least happy about what's happening on their border. I just can't see how we benefit from this.

Also, I've hardly seen anything about Syria on the news here in the U.S. people are largely oblivious to anything happening outside of our borders. On Russian news sites I also have seen very little intrest in what's been happening.

Russia is acting in a way that's beneficial to them, of course. Russia wants to protect Russian interests in Syria, so of course they want to prevent anything from happening to the current regime. Russia supply weapons, ammo, tanks etc. to the syrians, and also Russia has investments in syrian.

Russian Syrian military contractors were worth $4 billion in 2010, and Russia also has gas refining plants there.