Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

How come NATO hasn't bombed Syria yet?

49 replies to this topic
BGModder
  • BGModder

    Lola's Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 May 2009
  • None

#1

Posted 12 June 2011 - 04:13 AM

I mean, Libya was attacked because Muammar Gaddafi was killing civilians, right? Well Syria is essentially doing the same thing... Not to mention the atrocities committed by Bahraini and Saudi forces against protesters in Bahrain. It's definitely not because they're running low on resources or manpower, so what gives? What makes Libya so special? Because they weren't a U.S. ally?

Rown
  • Rown

    weltvolkzeit

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2005
  • None

#2

Posted 12 June 2011 - 04:47 AM

QUOTE
It's definitely not because they're running low on resources or manpower


Actually it kinda is:
QUOTE (New York Times)
And despite NATO’s decision to take command of the air war in Libya, the alliance is running out of bombs after just 11 weeks, he said.

Link

The outgoing Secretary of Defense isn't too happy with NATO's lack of ability when the US isn't there to hold its hand.
Video.

Combined with a lack of political will and you have a recipe for non-involvement. Maybe we'll build up to a Syrian intervention, and maybe not. We didn't respond to Rwanda, Sudan, and we didn't take out Saddam immediately after he committed atrocities against the Kurds and Shia populations in his country. The US and the UN talk a big game but I don't really think they care.

Rown rampage_ani.gif

BGModder
  • BGModder

    Lola's Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 May 2009
  • None

#3

Posted 12 June 2011 - 06:06 AM Edited by BGModder, 12 June 2011 - 06:10 AM.

QUOTE (Rown @ Saturday, Jun 11 2011, 23:47)
QUOTE
It's definitely not because they're running low on resources or manpower


Actually it kinda is:
QUOTE (New York Times)
And despite NATO’s decision to take command of the air war in Libya, the alliance is running out of bombs after just 11 weeks, he said.

Link

The outgoing Secretary of Defense isn't too happy with NATO's lack of ability when the US isn't there to hold its hand.
Video.

They're running out of bombs? You really believe that?


QUOTE (Rown @ Saturday, Jun 11 2011, 23:47)
Combined with a lack of political will and you have a recipe for non-involvement. Maybe we'll build up to a Syrian intervention, and maybe not. We didn't respond to Rwanda, Sudan, and we didn't take out Saddam immediately after he committed atrocities against the Kurds and Shia populations in his country. The US and the UN talk a big game but I don't really think they care.

Doesn't seem so much like a lack of political will than it does a conflict of interest. Iraq was very much under U.S. influence during the Halabja massacre which came on the heels of the Iran-Iraq war, in which Kurdistan Democratic Party and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan fought alongside Iran; and most of the atrocities committed against Shias were in the early 1980s because, like the Kurds, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and Islamic Dawa Party were fighting for the Islamic Republic of Iran (it was also because he was convicted of these atrocities that he was executed in 2006). It wasn't until the Gulf War in which Saddam revolted against the West, attempted to capture Kuwait and attacked Israel that the U.S. became involved. Not to mention similar acts of genocide have been committed in Saudi Arabia against the Shia minority that go unreported and completely ignored, yet the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are very close diplomatically. In fact, there was a news story not too long ago about the U.S. giving Saudi Arabia millions of dollars in weapons to "protect themselves from Iran." It wasn't until late 2007 that Libya started to fall under heavier Russian influence that they began to be demonized and condemned... and here we are now bombing them, and only them, for committing crimes against his people that are also being committed in several other countries.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#4

Posted 12 June 2011 - 06:32 AM

#1 because NATO as mentioned sucks. I do believe they are running out of bombs since the US pulled back. The US is the only thing that is keeping it together. England and France are the only two nations in all of NATO who actually matter and have military budgets that go over 50 billion dollars, and even that is nothing compared to what the US stands. Sure, Germany has a very advanced military, but it is small and underfunded. NATO as a whole is a joke.

#2 because if we did that to Syria it could cause grave economic issues. Libya has no US interests like Syria does.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#5

Posted 12 June 2011 - 09:23 AM Edited by sivispacem, 12 June 2011 - 09:25 AM.

There are two relatively simple reasons why NATO hasn't intervened in Syria yet.

1) The Syrian uprising has yet to even come close to the scale of the Libyan uprising. As I've mentioned before one of the more critical elements of the Libyan intervention is that it was supported by (to all estimates) a majority of the population. Notwithstanding Gadaffi's utterly illegitimate and disproportionate use of force against his own people, threats of genocide ect, he had, by sheer popular opinion, lost all mandate to govern the nation. Ergo, he could no longer hold the legitimate monopoly on the use of force by the security services. Self-interest also plays a significant role. Whilst we dress up the current intervention in Libya as "humanitarian", it's real motivation is two-fold; firstly, to demonstrate to the wider Arab world that the West is happy to support them in seeking their self-determination and democratisation, and secondly to attempt to establish a regime with more friendly diplomatic and trade relations with NATO powers so as to improve both sides economic prospects and also conveniently push China out of a very lucrative potential market.

2) Iran. Simple as that, Iran. We've all seen what casualties Iranian-funded insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have caused to Coalition forces, and an incursion into Syria would inflame tensions something awful. Syria is the lever through which Iran exerts its power over the region; it's through Syria that Iran ships weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah, for instance. In fact, it would be quite fair to say that Syria are Iran's only true ally. Whilst it would be endlessly beneficial to the West for the Assad regime to come crashing down (and therefore severely limit Iran's sphere of influence, especially with Saudi Arabia growing to be the primary military as well as economic power in the region), we can't intervene because Iran's response would be to encourage, train and fund those hard-line Syrians who still support Assad into an irregular insurgency; therefore most likely demanding a NATO or multilateral "peacekeeping" ground force to be set up in Syria, which, like most Arab states, has a degree of sectarian tension. The establishment of such a force would, in all likelihood, mirror-image the establishment of the multilateral force in Iraq of Afghanistan- except, in this example, Iran would probably pump even larger sums of money into Syria to incite an insurgency, such is Iran's need for a friendly government in Syria.



@Irviding- please don't overstate the importance of the US in the current intervention in Libya (and likely in any future military intervention in the region); if one power of those involved deserves to take the credit for their relative success, it's France.

Josh
  • Josh

    It starts and ends with you

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2010
  • None

#6

Posted 12 June 2011 - 12:21 PM

Another simple reason is due to the relative size of the two countries. Libya is about 10x as large as Syria in terms of area. And that makes all of the difference, because you don't want to be bombing civilian populations if you can help it.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#7

Posted 12 June 2011 - 12:54 PM

QUOTE (Josh @ Sunday, Jun 12 2011, 13:21)
Another simple reason is due to the relative size of the two countries. Libya is about 10x as large as Syria in terms of area. And that makes all of the difference, because you don't want to be bombing civilian populations if you can help it.

This is important too. Whilst the majority of direct fighting in Libya has been in and around towns and cities, the majority of the armoured vehicles, air bases and command and control centres targeted by NATO during the intervention have been isolated from civilian areas. The same would not be true of any intervention in Syria.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#8

Posted 12 June 2011 - 04:37 PM Edited by Irviding, 12 June 2011 - 04:40 PM.

Silver, that's simply not true. While France and England have the equipment and military strength (equipment as in vehicles, helicopters, airplanes, strength as in troop numbers and troop training/skills) to handle these interventions, they do not have the ammunition. You've seen the articles. NATO cannot sustain this operation without US ammunition and supplies. Due to austerity measures throughout Europe, you guys have absolutely nothing in terms of military budgets, and we are left picking up the tab. Though I agree with your point #1 extensively, and #2 is a very interesting point. Though I do disagree about Assad's leaving being the best for the west (no rhyme intended there). Don't forget he was western backed for years prior to this uprising. Maybe after Libya Europe will think twice about decimating their military budgets.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#9

Posted 12 June 2011 - 06:15 PM Edited by sivispacem, 12 June 2011 - 06:30 PM.

QUOTE (Irviding @ Sunday, Jun 12 2011, 17:37)
Silver, that's simply not true. While France and England have the equipment and military strength (equipment as in vehicles, helicopters, airplanes, strength as in troop numbers and troop training/skills) to handle these interventions, they do not have the ammunition. You've seen the articles. NATO cannot sustain this operation without US ammunition and supplies. Due to austerity measures throughout Europe, you guys have absolutely nothing in terms of military budgets, and we are left picking up the tab. Though I agree with your point #1 extensively, and #2 is a very interesting point. Though I do disagree about Assad's leaving being the best for the west (no rhyme intended there). Don't forget he was western backed for years prior to this uprising. Maybe after Libya Europe will think twice about decimating their military budgets.

In terms of munitions, what has the US contributed to the current operation? Around 100 cruise missiles on the opening night, and a handful of B-2 raids against Libyan airfields. US military assistance, save for logistics, stopped at the end of March. Since then, it's been almost entirely down to France and the UK to maintain the military operations. I'm not denying the statement that Robert Gates made about the weaknesses in NATO, and their reliance on US logistical assistance- it's quite true, for certain items, many of the NATO member states are woefully under-equipped. But it's not the case with all munitions or equipment, not by any means. I don't buy into this "only 30 days of iron bombs" bollocks, it just simply isn't true- certainly not in the case of the UK, anyway. Exactly what, in terms of munitions, is the UK reliant on the US for? Tomahawk missiles- yes, that's a given, as they're US produced and supplied and no-one has been given license to produce them domestically. JDAM kits for the Mk 80 series- again, no domestic production of them, and they're being produced in numbers far too low for sustained military operations as it is. Bizarrely, we're reliant on the US for 5.56x45 NATO ammunition, but that's 1) irrelivent as there are no ground forces involved and b) almost entirely due to the US pressuring NATO into adopting the 7.65x51mm, and later 5.56x45mm rounds, despite both having considerable problems (recoil in the former, stopping power in the latter) and the .280 British round being ballistically superior to both. Anyway, besides the two aforementioned items, I can't think of anything that the UK is reliant on the US military for. Storm Shadow? Brimstone? Enhanced Paveway? ALARM? These are the four weapons that are being used predominantly by the UK in attacks on Libyan materiel, backed up by UK-provided AWACS and UK provided airborne command and control.

Spaghetti Cat
  • Spaghetti Cat

    I Love Pony Farming

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2009

#10

Posted 16 June 2011 - 06:43 PM

Oil? Lybia has it and Syria doesn't...and I'm not one of those 'blood for oil types'.
Also explains why France/Italy/England are taking the lead and the US isn't.
Just my own personal opinion.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#11

Posted 16 June 2011 - 10:09 PM Edited by sivispacem, 16 June 2011 - 10:57 PM.

QUOTE (Spaghetti Cat @ Thursday, Jun 16 2011, 19:43)
Oil?  Lybia has it and Syria doesn't...and I'm not one of those 'blood for oil types'. 
Also explains why France/Italy/England are taking the lead and the US isn't. 
Just my own personal opinion.

As a general rule, anyone who plays the "oh it's oil" card is either utterly deluded or has quite literally no idea what they're talking about. Not to be offensive, but not only does all the evidence run contrary to the idea, but those who continue to support it tend to do so without understanding it's origins or any of the factual information surrounding it. Personally, I have literally no idea where this absurd "war for oil" idea comes from, even in relation to Iraq- it runs entirely contrary to both logic and history. What's happened to oil production in Iraq since 2003? It's gone down. Who have been the primary benificiaries of oil contracts in Iraq since 2005? China and Russia. Not quite seeing where this idea of a "war-for-profit" comes in, personally. In the case of Libya as things currently stand, who has been getting Libyan oil? France, Spain and Italy, predominantly. Is the current conflict likely to tangibly increase oil production? Well, seen as NATO have been bombing storage facilities in Tripoli and Gadaffi's forces have been attempting to destroy Mirata's oil processing facilities, it's pretty doubtful. Also worth mentioning that whilst Libyan oil production is three times that of Syria, it's also more than 10 times the physical size so oil production is, comparatively speaking, lower.

But hey, let's not prevent the truth from getting in the way of recycling Iraq-War-Era fallacies.

General Goose
  • General Goose

    Because Jeb Bush is all in my house with disease.

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2009

#12

Posted 18 June 2011 - 01:34 AM

I basically agree with what sivispacem said. The actions of al-Assad are disgusting and, while it has not (yet) degraded to a full-out civil war like we're seeing in Libya, the West can't do much other than just condemn him and try and pass scornful UN resolutions. Maybe if NATO resources weren't already focused on things like Libya, we might be able to look past the problems like Iran and get involved in Syria, but I doubt it.

vertical limit
  • vertical limit

    When in doubt don't pull out.

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2010
  • None

#13

Posted 18 June 2011 - 10:39 PM

The answer is simple.

There is no petrol in Syria.

I am Libyan myself.

Rown
  • Rown

    weltvolkzeit

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2005
  • None

#14

Posted 19 June 2011 - 12:56 AM

QUOTE (Spaghetti Cat @ Thursday, Jun 16 2011, 12:43)

Oil?  Lybia has it and Syria doesn't...and I'm not one of those 'blood for oil types'. 
Also explains why France/Italy/England are taking the lead and the US isn't. 
Just my own personal opinion.



QUOTE (vertical limit @ June 18 @ 2011, 16:39)

The answer is simple.

There is no petrol in Syria.

I am Libyan myself.


In between there was silversaddlespaceman's point that it's unlikely an oil thing but you know... whatevs. Out of curiosity are you a Libyan IN Libya or out adventuring the non-desert?

As far as weapons stockpiles go, YES I am still willing to believe that NATO is at a loss. The US buys missiles by the thousand because odds are... we will use them in some conflict or another. Most of NATO probably doesn't view war as an immediate certainty when they write up their budgets AND not all of NATO is participating.

Right now I'm kinda partial to the idea of Erdogan getting fed up with Assad and deposing him but it's probably out on the 6th sigma of probability as Turkey would have to explain that with their treatment of the Kurds.

Rown rampage_ani.gif

vertical limit
  • vertical limit

    When in doubt don't pull out.

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2010
  • None

#15

Posted 19 June 2011 - 01:30 AM

I am from Libya, my parents are from there and I just left about a month ago.


Why

- Fuel is dried, no more fuel, you have to wait about 13 hours in the que just tonged a turn but then there might be no fuel in the station so you have to wait additional hours.

- All the teachers that were in school fled away pretty early.

- Fruits and Vegetables are now 5X times the normal price and they give you food poisining because they are old and a bit rotten.

- No more exports or imports.

- They proposed all that military sh*t to protect the civilians but they still keep dieing.

- Water and electricity keeps shutting down.

- And why make you ask that I still support Colonel Ghaddafi..
It is because I have some loyalty, 42 years as a leader, why now?


One thing I got good from this revolution is because it showed who were my real friends.

Some of my friends even deleted from facebook because of who I support but I didn't give a f*ck infact I am grateful.

I still have some real friends who respect my decision even though they want the
Leader out, they are still good friends and I also respect their decision.

d0mm2k8
  • d0mm2k8

    ad infinitum

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2009

#16

Posted 19 June 2011 - 03:22 AM Edited by d0mm2k8, 19 June 2011 - 03:28 AM.

QUOTE (vertical limit @ Sunday, Jun 19 2011, 02:30)
- And why make you ask that I still support Colonel Ghaddafi..
It is because I have some loyalty, 42 years as a leader, why now?

Well the fact that he's been the leader for 42 years shows how sh*t the political system is. No offence, but I bet you anything in the damn world that he would never give a sh*t about you; he would trade your life for his in a second if he had the chance so what is that loyalty worth?

What has he ever done for you?

QUOTE
The answer is simple.

There is no petrol in Syria.

I am Libyan myself.

Did you even read DDS' post? The entire oil argument is such an illogical fallacy that only a moron or someone who's emotionally compromised (such as yourself) would buy into it. I'd explain more, but I can't be bothered since it's already been covered by sivispacem's post that you probably didn't regard due to personal bias.

vertical limit
  • vertical limit

    When in doubt don't pull out.

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2010
  • None

#17

Posted 19 June 2011 - 01:40 PM

When I was shot by the rebels, they gave me 30 grand in British Pounds, they said they would have paid me in dollars but as you know the money in the bank is frozen.

They gave me 10 grand for each bullet that hit me, that's 20 and another 10 for telling them the rebel safehouse.

They gave us the latest Toyota LandCruiser with full car options, it was olive-green, it looked very nice.

And at the Libyan-Tunisian border, it was a very long Que. but because I was in the Que., they let pass first.


About the second thing, sorry I didn't read previous posts.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#18

Posted 19 June 2011 - 05:24 PM

QUOTE (vertical limit @ Saturday, Jun 18 2011, 23:39)
The answer is simple.

There is no petrol in Syria.

...Hang on. See my post above.

Now, I know that your understanding of the subject matter is twisted by your personal involvement in it, but there are some things that are just factual. Like, for instance, the fact that Syria produces more oil per square kilometre of land than Libya does. Three-and-a-half times as much, in fact. And even if one ignores the size difference between the two states, the overall oil production of Syria is still a pretty sizeable- as well as 530,000 barrels per day of domestically extracted oil, they also contain processing and shipping facilities that are used by many other Middle Eastern nations in the transportation of their oil.

As a percentage of their economy, Syria is more heavily oil-focused than Libya.

General Goose
  • General Goose

    Because Jeb Bush is all in my house with disease.

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2009

#19

Posted 19 June 2011 - 11:11 PM

QUOTE (vertical limit @ Sunday, Jun 19 2011, 01:30)
- And why make you ask that I still support Colonel Ghaddafi..
It is because I have some loyalty, 42 years as a leader, why now?

I understand you have a personal interest in this conflict that goes far beyond what I have, but this whole argument ("he's been 42 years, why now?") makes no sense. I understand that you may support Gaddafi and may have a justifiable dislike of the rebels, but "they've been there for a long time" does not give them a mandate to do whatever they want and rule without opposition. I do oppose term limits in politics as a matter of principle, but even elected long-term incumbents, as opposed to long-term tyrants like Gaddafi, don't have a "right" to hold that position just because they've been there for ages.

vertical limit
  • vertical limit

    When in doubt don't pull out.

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2010
  • None

#20

Posted 21 June 2011 - 03:03 AM

Yup I do get your going.


About 36 hours ago, Nato bombed a small residence area, they said they were aiming for a military but everyone who lives there knows that the closed military base is about 25 KM away and even if there is a military base Nato already bombed it.

I have a question though, how can Nato make a mistake with the aim, I am just curious.

But let me ask you this.

Why didn't they got involved with the other countries uprising, why Libya's uprising only?

Syria is using heli attacks and nobody even mentioned Syria's uprising.

I put a lot of thought in that bro.

General Goose
  • General Goose

    Because Jeb Bush is all in my house with disease.

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2009

#21

Posted 21 June 2011 - 07:21 AM

QUOTE (vertical limit @ Tuesday, Jun 21 2011, 03:03)
I have a question though, how can Nato make a mistake with the aim, I am just curious.

Even nations with great military technology and massive military strength, like the member nations of NATO, can make idiotic mistakes.

QUOTE
Why didn't they got involved with the other countries uprising, why Libya's uprising only?


That's what this whole topic is about. tounge.gif

chapapote
  • chapapote

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2008

#22

Posted 21 June 2011 - 09:59 AM

Syria has lots of allies in that region. Gaddafi, however, made himself a lot of enemies among Islamic countries (ironically he was most liked among non-Islamic countries). The Arab League actually asked for a Lybian bombing because they couldn't stand Gaddafi. It won't be the same thing if Syria is attacked, the other islamic countries will help Syria.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#23

Posted 21 June 2011 - 01:43 PM

QUOTE (chapapote @ Tuesday, Jun 21 2011, 10:59)
Syria has lots of allies in that region. Gaddafi, however, made himself a lot of enemies among Islamic countries (ironically he was most liked among non-Islamic countries). The Arab League actually asked for a Lybian bombing because they couldn't stand Gaddafi. It won't be the same thing if Syria is attacked, the other islamic countries will help Syria.

Just to explore this a little more, the only real reason that Assad has been viewed favourably (by the West in particular) was the attempts his regime made to provide intelligence assistance to the West in combatting terrorism. Since it came to light that they had been "playing the opposite side", in providing a forum for Iran to sell weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas, he lost a lot of support, especially from the anti-Iran bloc.

D- Ice
  • D- Ice

    Gangsta

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006

#24

Posted 22 June 2011 - 07:07 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Jun 16 2011, 17:09)
QUOTE (Spaghetti Cat @ Thursday, Jun 16 2011, 19:43)
Oil?  Lybia has it and Syria doesn't...and I'm not one of those 'blood for oil types'. 
Also explains why France/Italy/England are taking the lead and the US isn't. 
Just my own personal opinion.

As a general rule, anyone who plays the "oh it's oil" card is either utterly deluded or has quite literally no idea what they're talking about. Not to be offensive, but not only does all the evidence run contrary to the idea, but those who continue to support it tend to do so without understanding it's origins or any of the factual information surrounding it. Personally, I have literally no idea where this absurd "war for oil" idea comes from, even in relation to Iraq- it runs entirely contrary to both logic and history. What's happened to oil production in Iraq since 2003? It's gone down. Who have been the primary benificiaries of oil contracts in Iraq since 2005? China and Russia. Not quite seeing where this idea of a "war-for-profit" comes in, personally. In the case of Libya as things currently stand, who has been getting Libyan oil? France, Spain and Italy, predominantly. Is the current conflict likely to tangibly increase oil production? Well, seen as NATO have been bombing storage facilities in Tripoli and Gadaffi's forces have been attempting to destroy Mirata's oil processing facilities, it's pretty doubtful. Also worth mentioning that whilst Libyan oil production is three times that of Syria, it's also more than 10 times the physical size so oil production is, comparatively speaking, lower.

But hey, let's not prevent the truth from getting in the way of recycling Iraq-War-Era fallacies.

Firstly, you hit the nail over the head in your previous post regarding why Syria isn't being attacked yet in terms of it's allies in Iran. However, Iran does pull the strings on the current Iraqi government, probably much more so than Syria, but probably less than Hizbollah. Everything else you put perfectly, so I wont really analyse any further, as it'll be just me repeating the same in a much more long-winding manner. biggrin.gif

Anyway, regarding your current post, people playing the "oil card" are by no means deluded or have a groundless opinion. Making such a wide-sweeping assumption, and an insulting one at that, suggests some ignorance regarding the situation. People who make such counter-arguements are the type who merely indirectly insult and attempt to undermine the people they disagree with without actually making any valid points.
This is a shame because it can't be any further from the truth about you. You definately seem very well educated regarding the manner, and you go on to make some very intelligent points as to why oil isn't at the centre of it.

You are very right in that Chinese and Russian companies (any ones with close ties to each respective government at that) are currently taking all the oil. I also was in contact with a guy on another forum who worked in the Basra docks in the oil industry. He talked about and posted loads of pictures of the many flagless ships which come in to fill up on oil, and photocopies shipping reports saying how most are destined to Chinese, Iranian and Indian ports - though none had any official company or flag, and provided their own armed security personel. According to him, most also spoke Farsi. I'm not going to pretend to know anything about international shipping, or the reliability of such sources, but that all does seems highly suspicious, and suggests Iran is also getting a sizeable chunk of the oil (if we didn't know that already, judging by how Iraqi imports today are all Iranian). Anyway, what I am trying to say is twofold:
•Iraqi oil production figures are not always accurate, a lot of production and sales happen via the black market - corruption is through the roof. Iraq is definately producing more oil than the figures suggest - maybe so the corrupt government can go on building their own Saddam-style palaces in Qom, kinda like Muqtada Al Sadr.
•A lot of oil is going to Iran, an enemy of the US/West. The rest going to countries like China and Russia - at best described as "rivals" of the West.

This however does not necessarily mean the US completely doesn't care about the oil in Iraq or Iraqi business ties to the West. The current situation is the very opposite to what the US intended to do in Iraq.

The Oil Ministry was the first to be taken over and greatly protected by the US at the very start of the invasion of Baghdad. Other Ministeries and institutions which are just, if not more, profittable for Iraq were allowed to be over-run by looters or a few purposefully targetted in bombing raids.
The first unelected Interm President of Iraq - Ghazi Al-Yawar - had a very clear pro-Western agenda, and stated right back in 2004 to bring Western companies to develop the oil industry. He's also from the Shammar tribe, with close ties to the West going back since before Islam, as well as ties to Cheney and the Saudi Royal Family (despite being deadly rivals before the 1930's). The same is true regarding Pachechi.

So the US certainly had an interest in Iraqi oil and influence there. It is just that when Maliki came to power - seeming going to be very pro-West too judging from his intense hatred to Ba'athism - he ended up revealing himself to actually playing for the other team Iran, who also hated the Ba'athis. This is a complete betrayal regarding his massive support by US funding.
So in the next election, US funding was with Allawi, who did end up winning. Though through the Iraqi electorial system, drawn up in the constitution and aimed at preventing anti-US parties getting in, he was unable to become PM (after the longest post-election political stalemate in history). This was simply because the election results were opposite to what the US was prepared for as Maliki unexpectedly changed allegiance.

It was under the Iranian hijacking of the system put in place to prevent anti-US parties taking office, that now the US has failed in what it intended to do in Iraq. Iran is influencing Iraq, and they are doing everything possible to undermine the US, and one of these things is to sell oil to all the US's rivals.
So yes, the US is not getting any oil, and it is all going to their rivals. But that does not, in my opinion, mean that was what the US planned for.

What I find quite funny now though, is the mounting US opposition against the very safeguards they created and put in place to prevent anti-US parties coming into power. A good example is the "De-Ba'athification Council" if you want to read about it in archived news. tounge2.gif

Apologies if my post seems very long-winded, I am a bit of a ranter on here. colgate.gif
And welcome to the Connection bro. I've been a member of this forum and the connection for quite a while, but left to study before you came here. So welcome again man, and really glad to see a well-informed member interested in politics here, there's also several others here too.

TC


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#25

Posted 22 June 2011 - 08:00 PM Edited by sivispacem, 23 June 2011 - 07:35 AM.

An extremely intelligent post.

I should clarify my statement a little- I wasn't by any stretch of the imagination insinuating that the US doesn't care about oil- they do, as do most nations with heavily industrialised economies. Even those without are still slaves to it in terms of transportation, energy supply et cetera. My point was more in reference to the constant allegations that any conflict involving the US (in particular) is a "war for oil". It completely ignores not only the huge costs in terms of oil and other resources that are required to wage such conflicts (a fact usually missed by many who make these statements) but also the destabilising aspect of conflict and the affect that that is bound to have on oil production. Not to mention the extremely limited US involvement in Libya currently.

You're right, though, regarding the influence of Iran in Iraqi politics. I've recently been working on some briefings related to the Arab Spring as a wider subject and one of the key judgements is that Iran has been the primary benificiary of everything that has gone on. The destabilisation in the Ba'athist regimes and the anti-Iranian Sunni block. However, Saudi Arabia are staking a claim to be the true power broker in the region, with favourable relations with almost all nations (unlike Iran, whose only true ally is Syria), and who has both the financing and the backing to become the major regional player.

vertical limit
  • vertical limit

    When in doubt don't pull out.

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2010
  • None

#26

Posted 22 June 2011 - 11:54 PM

Gentlemen, it is spelled Libya.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#27

Posted 23 June 2011 - 07:40 AM

QUOTE (vertical limit @ Thursday, Jun 23 2011, 00:54)
Gentlemen, it is spelled Libya.

I don't mind grammar or spelling Nazism as a general rule, but try and keep it out of D&D.

fgcarva1
  • fgcarva1

    Il Figlioccio

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2010

#28

Posted 24 June 2011 - 01:24 AM

Don't blame him, VL is from Libya. I see where he's coming from, how would you feel if people misspelled the name of your country wrong multiple times? But that's getting off-topic. Well, I do know some people who work for the State Department, well I know A LOT of people who work for the State Department of a bunch of different countries as I go to an International school full of Diplomat's sons and daughters. I was talking this over with a Turkish Brigadier General the other day and he was telling me that his opinion is that it's all on foreign relations. Like someone has said, it's all about the Western powers disliking Gaddafi, and the oil involved. Especially when according to the French (Libya's #1 oil buyers), Gaddafi was burning down oil refineries. But that guy had a very biased and strong opinion, so I don't necessarily believe him.

vertical limit
  • vertical limit

    When in doubt don't pull out.

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2010
  • None

#29

Posted 24 June 2011 - 04:14 AM

Guys did you watch what the Leader Colonel Gaddafi word on Nato's recent attacks on one of the Leaders fellow mate.

They launched 7 rockets which have not been identified of what kind they are yet.

Deaths.

The Mother ( was 5-6 months pregnant)
1 boy 3 years of age
1 girl 6-8 years of age
2 morrocan maids
The housekeepers wife and children.

Several neighbors 7-35 years of age.

This is just what I can remember, I will get the complete list.


Clinton replied back on The Leader Colonel Gaddafi's word, saying that he should leave.


Which Libyan supporters respond saying (note: this is translated from Libyan Arabic to English)

You want him to leave?? Is he sleeping at your parents so you can tell him to leave??


It actually made me laugh my ass of for real.

D- Ice
  • D- Ice

    Gangsta

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006

#30

Posted 24 June 2011 - 02:59 PM Edited by D- Ice, 24 June 2011 - 03:19 PM.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Jun 22 2011, 15:00)
An extremely intelligent post.

I should clarify my statement a little- I wasn't by any stretch of the imagination insinuating that the US doesn't care about oil- they do, as do most nations with heavily industrialised economies. Even those without are still slaves to it in terms of transportation, energy supply et cetera. My point was more in reference to the constant allegations that any conflict involving the US (in particular) is a "war for oil". It completely ignores not only the huge costs in terms of oil and other resources that are required to wage such conflicts (a fact usually missed by many who make these statements) but also the destabilising aspect of conflict and the affect that that is bound to have on oil production. Not to mention the extremely limited US involvement in Libya currently.

You're right, though, regarding the influence of Iran in Iraqi politics. I've recently been working on some briefings related to the Arab Spring as a wider subject and one of the key judgements is that Iran has been the primary benificiary of everything that has gone on. The destabilisation in the Ba'athist regimes and the anti-Iranian Sunni block. However, Saudi Arabia are staking a claim to be the true power broker in the region, with favourable relations with almost all nations (unlike Iran, whose only true ally is Syria), and who has both the financing and the backing to become the major regional player.

Thanks man, and I see where you're coming from in terms of the inaccuracy of some people who automatically jump to the conclusion that every war the US gets into is for oil. And a very nice point about just how much oil (and other resources) the "war machine" of industrialised countries actually uses in going to war. I have no sources for this, but I wont be surprised if the US actually used more oil in the Iraq war than it actually managed to get - and even that would have been bought for a price.
I guess I just don't want this place turning like a pro-Iran, pro-Maliki Iraqi forum I was on years ago - "You want secularism, just like the Ba'athis. Therefore you are a Ba'athi. And therefore any point you make, regardless of it's merit, is automatically wrong." rolleyes.gif

And I am so happy to see other people understand the sheer scope of Iranian influence in the Middle-East. Out of interest, what type of briefings were you working on, do you work for politics or the military?
It is also quite worrying (for someone like me, having roots and family in the Arab world) that Iran is the main beneficiary from the Arab Spring. I was kinda hoping it will bring Arab countries closer to the West. It is easy to see the Iranian influence in the troubles in Bahrain, North-Eastern Saudi Arabia and Jordan (playing the Islamist card to oust pro-Western leaders), but are they behind the troubles in Egypt too?
I'm not too sure, but I see this whole Arab Spring as a rush by the West and Iran/Russia/China to take over and influence initially indiginous revolutionary struggles so that the resulting governments will have friendly and beneficial ties with them.

I would seriously hope that Saudi Arabia is finally waking up and attempting to spread its influence to become a regional player. Not only are they a Western Ally and supported by the West, but as an Arab country have much closer cultural and historic ties to the rest of the region, unlike Iran whose main efforts are characterised by an errosion or Arabian culture and the propogation of extremist hatred against any and all it's rivals. Economically, pro-Western Arab countries have also been economically so much more successfull than those who either chose the pro-Soviet path and now pro-Iran path, and the inhabitatnts certainly live a much happier, more stable lifestyle. Just compare Syria to Jordan who are extremely similar in many respects thoughout history, yet chose different paths.
Interestingly, when I went to Syria a few years back, it seemed Iranian-sponsered factions were using this very same economic success to portray those countries and their inhabitants as gluttonous, ruthless and exploitative, and thus create hatred towards them and Western influence. The exact same is happening in Iraq too.

TC




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users