Syria's Assad used chemical weapons on his own people

from reuters, 2009: "Critics said the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq said was driven by oil, but United States oil majors were largely absent from an Iraqi auction of oil deals snapped up instead by Russian, Chinese"

"No U.S. firms bid for fields offered in the second round, and of the four fields bid on by U.S. firms in the first round, only Exxon Mobil won a major prize"

"By contrast, Chinese state oil firms were involved in every first round bid and made a strong showing in the second."

"The results of the bid round should lay to rest the old canard that the U.S. intervened in Iraq to secure Iraqi oil for American companies,"

Time, 2009: "Only one U.S. company, Occidental Petroleum Corp., joined the bidding last weekend, and lost. (ExxonMobil had hoped to land the lucrative Rumaila field, but lost out to an alliance between the Chinese National Petroleum Company and BP because it declined the Iraqi government's $2-a-barrel fee.)"

"...U.S. oil giants, which largely stayed away from last week's bidding, and which have failed to negotiate oil deals with Iraq's government outside of the public auction process. Iraqi officials say they are not awarding contracts based on political considerations, but simply a straight comparison of prices and production targets. 'The bidding was extremely tough,' said one official in Baghdad, in an email. 'My guess is that [the U.S. companies] could not match the offers from others.'"

"In a previous bid round last June, Iraq handed control to the giant Rumaila field near Basra to Britain's BP, while ExxonMobil later took an 80% stake in another huge field, West Qurna Phase 1, and plan to eventually pump 2.5 million barrels a day."

McClatchy, 2013:"Iraq hasnt become the bonanza for big Western international oil companies that some might have expected when the U.S. invaded 10 years ago."

"Its a myth that U.S. energy security relies on Middle Eastern imports, he said. Oil from the region makes up just a small percentage of what America uses."

"American oil companies, in the meantime, are barely active in Iraq, said Robin Mills of Dubai-based Manaar Energy Consulting. Theres Exxon Mobil, which is locked in a dispute with the Iraqi government and is looking to sell at least some of its stake in the giant West Qurna-1 oil field"

i had skimmed most of those articles before i posted those links and looking at them again, i think they still enforce what i was getting at. US companies were mostly shut out of the bidding back in 09. looks to me like what exxon did get back on 09 wasn't productive enough for them due to iraq gov not cooperating and 'putting out' so to speak. i don't think that that one field being sold after being less than stellar for exxon constitutes exxon as having had 'control after the invasion'. those articles really don't come anywhere near close to saying that. exxon specifically got some piece of action, but not all or even most of it, and other US companies were mostly shut out. then exxons stake ended up being unproductive.

so here's the question- why would the US even allow the iraqi gov to dictate negotiations or hold auctions in the first place if the war was 'all about oil' as pretty much everyone on the left had said a quadrillion times? why would the US have stood and allowed themselves to be shut out of those bids? why would they have allowed iraq to dick exxon around with what stake they DID get, to the point where exxon wanted to get out a few years down the road?

why would the nyt describe the situation like this- "Chinese state-owned companies seized the opportunity, pouring more than $2 billion a year and hundreds of workers into Iraq, and just as important, showing a willingness to play by the new Iraqi governments rules and to accept lower profits to win contracts."

i think none of that in any way reinforces the notion that the iraq war was 'only about oil', for US's part. people acted like it was a blatant oil field land grab, and it looks like it was anything but that. you don't overthrow a regime then install something resembling a democracy and say 'ok now you guys can sell your oil to us, or not, up to you' if what you are doing is stealing their oil. it makes no sense. and yet benghazi has plenty of oil and under Gaddafi they didn't want to deal with the US. so how is it that so many people saw iraq as 'only about oil', and haven't admitted to this day that there are plenty of facts that fly squarely in the face of that, yet obama's aid (which would have been called illegal if done by a republican) to help overthrow gaddafi, who wouldn't deal with the US and who's country has the largest proven oil reserves in all of africa, didn't get those claims?

  On 9/1/2013 at 3:26 AM, SR4 said:

this might also provide another perspective on whats going on or what went on with Iraqi oil:

 

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/was-the-iraq-war-to-get-oil-or-to-keep-it-off-the-market.html

it might, but it seems to me to be more in the realm of one man's theory to explain why the entire left's prediction about what would happen in iraq, simply did not happen. and it's no surprise that people who held firmly that iraq WAS going to be a 'blood for oil' scheme as this guy calls it, would have stake in explaining why it actually turned out not to be. if i wanted to, right now, i could concoct a well worded, well researched theory as to why hitler may have actually started world war 2 because he wanted to give hollywood something to make great movies about.

also, that guy is aware that it isn't only 'neo-cons' who have money in 'big oil', isn't he? for example, Al "“There’s no such thing as ethical oil" Gore, who has more money than even big bad 'for the rich' mitt romney, from OIL.

me, awe, delet, alco for a few have been making the exact same claims, except it would be streamlining it to say that the U.S. literally only invades for oil. Power is exercised in far more ways (i.e. military placement, Iraq essentially as a military tributary).

do you approve of intervention in Syria? Or do you oppose it? All I'm seeing here is anger directed towards "the left". What I want to know is whether you support the action or not, and why.

anyone read this?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/

edit: actually, dunno if this could be trusted, judging from the comments below.

*puts on vinyl of market music*

  On 9/1/2013 at 4:37 AM, SR4 said:

me, awe, delet, alco for a few have been making the exact same claims, except it would be streamlining it to say that the U.S. literally only invades for oil. Power is exercised in far more ways (i.e. military placement, Iraq essentially as a military tributary).

 

do you approve of intervention in Syria? Or do you oppose it? All I'm seeing here is anger directed towards "the left". What I want to know is whether you support the action or not, and why.

Huh? Anger towards "the left"? Here in this thread? Which post? Posts? Or in the media in the US? I mostly see "right" conservatives against interventions. What are you arguing against? When it comes to foreign policies and interventions you see Obama as being "on the right", right?

All I see is that half of the posts since yesterday are about oil in Iraq and Libya, and some simple economic incentives the US (or rather, all countries) seems to act upon in situations like these. Throw in some extra realpolitik for extra flavor.

What I am interested to know is what obama is taking to extremes exactly? Are we talking about drones again? If that is the case: fair point, the number of drone attacks under Obama deserves a page in the book of world records. But what has that got to do with what is currently going on in Syria? Should the US do nothing because it has been taking it to extremes in the drone business?

I only see talking points to explain how ridiculously bad the current and past administrations have been. And how big of a power game the us has been playing in the middle east. That's fine and all, but the point is what should be done about the situation in Syria. IMO. Thankfully you gave your side of the coin: wait it out, with some other points I leave out with the danger of trivialising. I haven't heard anything from Awe, even after repeated questions, but whatever.

But if people would rather discuss why US foreign policy is so bad, here's a couple of questions. Because, well, after looking at all "the proof" I still see a lot of holes to be filled up.

What I don't understand about this whole realpolitik/ power game thing in the middle east, is the events from the past years. The Arab spring. How do these fit in? Are those riots initiated by the US? Was the outcome of the voting in Egypt controlled by a US conspiracy? Or is the current situation, where the Egyptian army is back in control, some sort of thing where behind the curtains the US is behind the wheel? And what part of the ploy is Syria? Did the US somehow trigger the riots years ago? Can you explain to me why, if the US has got some plan in the middle east, it took so long for them to do something? Or have they been doing something all along? Like providing arms to the rebellion. But is that purely US driven?

Here's some propaganda from the BBC

What we " know" happened in Syria

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23908846

And some extra propaganda about a schoolyard bombed with a "non chemical" weapon

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

If you want to know my point of view: I believe something needs to be done. And I don't feel things can come out of the UN at this point. The UN has taken far too long to come to - still no - concensus on what should be done ( mainly thanks to china and russia). At this point the situation in Syria seems so explosive that humanitarian help needs army protection. I don't see how humanitarian help can get done safely without some protection. So whatever is going to be done, with whatever kind of intentions ( lets keep it humanitarian for a change), the army looks like an integral part. If anyone got a better idea about helping the situation in Syria without help of the military, please do tell.

Is putting Abbas out of power part of that action? As far as I'm concerned, no. As said, I'd like this humanitarian intervention, with military assistence (for safety!) to be independent, like a referee in a football game. Help should be given to any human being, regardless of what side they're on. In the mean time, the political issue in Syria should be dealt with by diplomacy. Possibly with russia and or china involved as well.

But the main point is: in the current situation, humanitarian help needs military assistence.

And please notice my lack of interest in which side threw some chemical bombs. So those political talking points from the US governments could evaporate immediately and I'd still would be behind the above actions.

LOL

Watcha gonna do, motta fucka?

reminds me of:

Putin realises that what's happening in Syria is what happened in Russia in 1917. he knows how many people died because of that terrible event. he knows what will happen to the innocent people in syria when that event repeats itself in syria. it will be beyond brutal. beyond any of the terrible things that assad has done to his own people (torture and other nasties but not chemical weapons like the propaganda says)

common knowledge in all arab countries. deluded/denied/open secret(read the bible) of the west

Good point. Any tomahawk pointed at that chin will be unable to actually hit it. I can already see the panic in the laser guidance algorithm...waaat where is that friggin chin....

http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/burke.htm

Talking about Burke, how do you like this quote?

  Quote

 

 

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

  On 9/1/2013 at 9:08 AM, goDel said:

Here's some propaganda from the BBC

 

What we " know" happened in Syria

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23908846

 

And some extra propaganda about a schoolyard bombed with a "non chemical" weapon

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

 

If you want to know my point of view: I believe something needs to be done. And I don't feel things can come out of the UN at this point. The UN has taken far too long to come to - still no - concensus on what should be done ( mainly thanks to china and russia). At this point the situation in Syria seems so explosive that humanitarian help needs army protection. I don't see how humanitarian help can get done safely without some protection. So whatever is going to be done, with whatever kind of intentions ( lets keep it humanitarian for a change), the army looks like an integral part. If anyone got a better idea about helping the situation in Syria without help of the military, please do tell.

 

Is putting Abbas out of power part of that action? As far as I'm concerned, no. As said, I'd like this humanitarian intervention, with military assistence (for safety!) to be independent, like a referee in a football game. Help should be given to any human being, regardless of what side they're on. In the mean time, the political issue in Syria should be dealt with by diplomacy. Possibly with russia and or china involved as well.

 

But the main point is: in the current situation, humanitarian help needs military assistence.

 

And please notice my lack of interest in which side threw some chemical bombs. So those political talking points from the US governments could evaporate immediately and I'd still would be behind the above actions.

if it was any other country my stance would be the same. do absolutely nothing. do nothing ever. never do anything.

  On 9/1/2013 at 4:17 PM, goDel said:

 

Talking about Burke, how do you like this quote?

  Quote

 

 

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

 

argh, that's a misquote, actually said by a USA president, maybe reagan, guess his speechwriter was trying to paraphrase burke

i love the real quote, it's brilliant. i will try to find it for you

"when bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

exactly!!! exactly!!!

"when bad men combine, the good must associate (ON WATMM); else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Chunky Magee

for great IDM justice

LOL

where's the free association thread, btw? and if it was locked by master JR, does that imply he is a bad man?

Also, I love wikipedia:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke

  Quote

 

 

Disputed[edit]

• All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
  • This is probably the most quoted statement attributed to Burke, and an extraordinary number of variants of it exist, but all without any definite original source. These very extensively used remarks may be based on a paraphrase of some of Burke's ideas, but he is not known to have ever declared them in so succinct a manner in any of his writings. They may have been adapted from these lines of Burke's in his Thoughts on the Cause of Present Discontents (1770): "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

This purported quote bears a resemblance to the narrated theme of Sergei Bondarchuk's Soviet film adaptation of Leo Tolstoy's book "War and Peace", in which the narrator declares "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing", although since the original is in Russian various translations to English are possible. This purported quote also bears resemblance to a quote widely attributed to Plato, that said "The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." More research done on this matter is available at these two links: Burkequote & Burkequote2 — as the information at these links indicate, there aremany variants of this statement, probably because there is no clearly definitive original by Burke. The quote may very well be a modification of "‎Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing." - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address: Delivered to the University of St. Andrews, Feb. 1st 1867. In addition, an exhaustive examination of this quote has been done at the following link: [1].

And I also love the quote from Plato, tyrannical ruler of all that is philosophy. har har ;p

RIP Frost and a good excuse to watch the old Frost-Nixon interviews:

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."

That's a good one.

take out the word "evil" and you're on to something

meh, you can do whatever you want, you're still getting ruled by evil men. better to do nothing and post on the internet about it.

lol @ posting on the internet about posting on ther internet