Syria's Situation Dips Lower

[Oerdin]

Poor Syrians. Unlike Iraq and Libya they don't have any oil so no one wants to bomb them.

 

[Tycho]

Why is it that everything comes back to oil? Granted, we all need it, but even so, is it hard to imagine that the governments of the world invade a nation for something other than oil or nuclear weapons?

What would the government do with oil reserves anyways? Starting to harvest it would raise some eyebrows, especially after a military operation.

On the flipside, bombs went off in Damascus today, with dozens of security personnel wounded.

 

[Dachs]

Why is it that everything comes back to oil? Granted, we all need it, but even so, is it hard to imagine that the governments of the world invade a nation for something other than oil or nuclear weapons?

For some reason, people are obsessed with the notion of resource wars, despite the fact that they rarely occur in real history.

 

[Tycho]

For some reason, people are obsessed with the notion of resource wars, despite the fact that they rarely occur in real history.

Stuff similar to that appears from the rational parts of the internet, into the irrational parts of the web.

 

[BasketCase]

Poor Syrians. Unlike Iraq and Libya they don't have any oil so no one wants to bomb them.

Wrong. If Syria did have oil, the oil conglomerates (and most other governments as well) would be OPPOSED to military action against Syria!

No, that wasn't a typo. I really did say "opposed". Fact is, oil companies love dictators. Oil rigs and refineries are very safe in a despotic country such as Syria, because the government is willing to use any means necessary to provide security for lucrative industries that produce lots of taxable revenue.

My two coppers on Syria's situation in general: Assad knows the rest of the world is afraid to engage militarily. Right now he's banking on no military intervention, and he's made it pretty clear nothing else will stop him. So, at this point, either we invade Syria and topple its government or the current situation continues.

 

[innonimatu]

For some reason, people are obsessed with the notion of resource wars, despite the fact that they rarely occur in real history.

It would not be correct to look back on history as a guide for this. The long-distance commerce of resources on a large scale is a new thing, which started only really in the 1950s. Especially that of energy.
There was no parallel even during the european "age of imperialism", when the trade on resources was actually negligible. In the ancient world the fighting over Egypt or North Africa and Sicily as sources of grain does come to mind, for that was the only long-distance trade in bulk of a strategic resource.

 

[Tycho]

More news out of Syria today; the Free Syrian Army has been accused of isolated incidents of breaking the Geneva Conventions, while about three dozen more people are killed in Homs, Idlib, and elsewhere in the country, including military style executions of resistance fighters.

Assad seems to indeed be banking on the fact that no one will intervene.

 

[r16]

syria has enough oil that UN attempted to pass or passed a resolution to stop its export . Or something . Turkey has no place intervening in Syria and the Gulf Arabs don't have the power , despite the bluster and "Whites" , despite the fact that ı am also a blue eyed Caucasian , would like this to be done on somebody else's paychecks and blood .

 

[kramerfan86]

Two big things play a role in why you dont see military intervention in Syria like you did Libya. First off Russia's very close relationship with Syria is a major obstacle that didnt really exist in Libya. Ghaddafi had no major friends like that at his disposal. Second, and IMO more important is the fact the Syrian opposition isnt organized like Libya. In Libya targeting bombing actually helped the rebel forces advance and seize power. The Syrian opposition isnt built like that, we cant just do some bombing and help them make an organized advance.

 

[r16]

well , Libya really proved there is no bottom for Western appetite . Give 'em a little leeway for the interests of PR and they will hang people with it , organising a colour revolution in your country as well . The reason for the double UN vetoes ...

 

[kochman]

(i.e. UN vetoes - we can't even get the UN to condemn Asaad, let alone consider intervening)

The UN is a joke... terrible organization, composed of many dictatorships (because most of the world is not like the west). Of course they don't want to condemn him, they might be next on the chopping block.

Also, we shouldn't care about Ugandan warlord Kony, or North Korea, or Sudan, or the drug cartels in Mexico, etc. etc. etc.

So, how would you pick where we intervene and where we don't?
Do you support defense budget cuts as part of trying to get our deficit under control?
Shouldn't the UN be the force for intervention (see above however)?
Who should shoulder the load? How is that determined?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Julious Ceasar had the backing of the majority in Rome.

No, you don't understand. It's not the majority of the people that matter. It's having the support of the powerful and wealthy that will maintain the organs of power of one's regime that matter. That's what got Caesar killed. He believed that he had amassed so much personal power that he didn't have to consider the interests of the wealthy and powerful Senators. He worked to undermine their power and influence but was not ruthless enough to destroy them utterly. Because he did not maintain the privileges they expected to keep, the Senators took matters into their own hands, literally.

Syria has many magnificent ruins from the ancient world. Only other nations unwillingness to trade and visit with them has made the situation dire.

Magnificent ruins only bring tourist revenue, and then only with a well developed tourism infrastructure and advertising, none of which Syria has. Syria has had plenty of foreign trade. They just have nothing worth buying, except maybe baklava (the best in the world, from what I hear).

 

[innonimatu]

Two big things play a role in why you dont see military intervention in Syria like you did Libya. First off Russia's very close relationship with Syria is a major obstacle that didnt really exist in Libya. Ghaddafi had no major friends like that at his disposal. Second, and IMO more important is the fact the Syrian opposition isnt organized like Libya. In Libya targeting bombing actually helped the rebel forces advance and seize power. The Syrian opposition isnt built like that, we cant just do some bombing and help them make an organized advance.

Opposition can easily be put together, and with enough bombing made to advance. No, the problem with Syria is that you can't bomb it without risk. They actually have both some reasonable defenses, and allies willing to provide them with weapons. Thus instead of a quick war to install a favorable regime or just to create chaos, you'd risk getting involved in a long and expensive proxy conflict.

I don't believe anyone wants to bankroll a long proxy war in Syria. Nothing much to gain from controlling from Syria anyway, nothing much to gain from denying it to adversaries. I think this is all a temporary sideshow set up to get at Iran. And the escalating attacks against Iran cannot credibly be maintained much longer: constant threats and covert attacks only work for so long. It'll have to be either war or a peace settlement this year, not the in-between situation now existent. It would probably be a peace settlement, except that... a war might be a mighty convenient distraction from some other problems the world is going through.