Syrian Massacre

[mj.scuba]

I see British Defence Secretary Douglas Hague is making noises about getting involved. That's all we need

Another war, another few thousand American troops killed or maimed, half a trillion dollars added to the deficit, the Germans ducking out as they always do, the French sending a token force of non combatants and the US bearing the brunt of the fighting and then America being labeled neo fascist colonial bullies.

 

When will the middle east countries start to police their own problems?

 

African troops are succesfully restoring some kind of normalcy and order to Somalia after two decades of war. As the commander of the African troops stated "African problems are best solved by Africans" Never a truer word spoken and something that the Arab countries need to listen to and learn from

 

Spot on. If their Arab brothers won't step in to help, why should British and mainly Americans shed their blood, no gratitude will be shown by any of the world's Muslims even when coming to the aid of their fellow Muslims, quite the opposite in fact.

 

None of the Arab countries could intervene anyway without being hypocrites, they're about as democratic as Assad's Syria. The only country that can set any sort of example in that part of the world is Israel.

[Teddybare]

Spot on. If their Arab brothers won't step in to help, why should British and mainly Americans shed their blood, no gratitude will be shown by any of the world's Muslims even when coming to the aid of their fellow Muslims, quite the opposite in fact.

 

None of the Arab countries could intervene anyway without being hypocrites, they're about as democratic as Assad's Syria. The only country that can set any sort of example in that part of the world is Israel.

 

Simple answer is profit. Massive profit. Even without the oil reserves theres years of security contracts, control of pipelines, rebuilding the infrastructure they destroy.

 

It's the goal of the American war machine. That's how their country operates.

[callippo]

Simple answer is profit. Massive profit. Even without the oil reserves theres years of security contracts, control of pipelines, rebuilding the infrastructure they destroy.

 

again, this is just nonsense and trotted out without actual reference to the facts.

 

not a single US oil company secured a really major contract in Iraq in 2009 when they auctioned off the major oil contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil business in the next twenty years. Not a single one. The biggest contracts awarded were to Russian and Chinese companies and even the French got more oilfields to run than US companies did. Even though this was widely reported in the media when the oil contracts were awarded two and a half years ago, the 'war for oil' crowd continues to just blithely ignore the fact that US companies don't actually have much Iraqi oil to use to try to make a profit with at all, and that Russian and Chinese companies have more.

[LeMaquis]

....the US bearing the brunt of the fighting and then America being labeled neo fascist colonial bullies.

 

Korea, Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq - I wonder where people get their ideas that the USA rushes into wars while leaving their brains at home.

[Harleyman]

Simple answer is profit. Massive profit. Even without the oil reserves theres years of security contracts, control of pipelines, rebuilding the infrastructure they destroy.

 

It's the goal of the American war machine. That's how their country operates.

 

Well there wont be any involvement this time and Britain wont get involved either if America doesnt so the Syrians can sort out their own little civil war by themselves As for the Russians and Chinese they'll just go on blocking any attempts by the UN to take action.

It must be worrying for those two countries with their own rotten, corrupt repressive regimes to see the one in Syria in danger of toppling. These kind of uprisings can be catching at times.

 

Anyway the US has nothing to gain from any oil that Syria has but you on the other hand import all your oil from the middle east whereas the US only buys about 15 percent from that part of the world.

[Harleyman]

Korea, Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq - I wonder where people get their ideas that the USA rushes into wars while leaving their brains at home.

 

North Africa, Itally, Britain, Normandy, Belgium, Luxemburg, Germany, Guadalcanal, The Solomons, the Phillipines, Japan

 

Dont let your blinkered prejudices keep you from the facts

[callippo]

in 1980, there was only a handful of countries in Latin America that qualified as democracies.

 

fast forward ten years later in 1990. By this time, there was only a handful that weren't. The kneejerk anti-US crowd will never admit that maybe, just maybe, the foreign policy of the United States in their 'backyard' just might have had something to do with what was an incredible transformation of an entire continent really. But they never will of course.

[Teddybare]

Simple answer is profit. Massive profit. Even without the oil reserves theres years of security contracts, control of pipelines, rebuilding the infrastructure they destroy.

 

again, this is just nonsense and trotted out without actual reference to the facts

 

http://www.businesspundit.com/the-25-most-vicious-iraq-war-profiteers/

 

Additional to the oil deals, which you can bet America had a hand in mediating/arranging, it justifies keeping such a huge army, brings international investment and allows foreign countries to conveniently freeze and never pay back overseas assets as regimes are changed.

 

When you're done reading that here's another: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?pagewanted=all

 

Coincidence perhaps?

 

Pipelines. Look on a map. Look on a map of oil pipeline routes through central Asia/middle east. Then imagine you wanted to circumvent Iran or even just make a more direct route through. Then look at which countries have been pacified/invaded/occupied.

When you've done that decide how much is coincidence.

[Teddybare]

in 1980, there was only a handful of countries in Latin America that qualified as democracies.

 

fast forward ten years later in 1990. By this time, there was only a handful that weren't. The kneejerk anti-US crowd will never admit that maybe, just maybe, the foreign policy of the United States in their 'backyard' just might have had something to do with what was an incredible transformation of an entire continent really. But they never will of course.

 

Yeah it's a lovely peaceful place. Obviously brought about by the invasion of panama, american demand for narcotics and masses of arms deals/arms smuggling.

If only America could use this model everywhere else in the world. Maybe here next. We should all aspire to be more like brazil or Mexico or Columbia.

Team America. World police.

[mj.scuba]

http://www.businesspundit.com/the-25-most-vicious-iraq-war-profiteers/

 

Additional to the oil deals, which you can bet America had a hand in mediating/arranging, it justifies keeping such a huge army, brings international investment and allows foreign countries to conveniently freeze and never pay back overseas assets as regimes are changed.

 

When you're done reading that here's another: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?pagewanted=all

 

Coincidence perhaps?

 

Pipelines. Look on a map. Look on a map of oil pipeline routes through central Asia/middle east. Then imagine you wanted to circumvent Iran or even just make a more direct route through. Then look at which countries have been pacified/invaded/occupied.

When you've done that decide how much is coincidence.

 

But most of those companies bidding for and winning lucrative contracts are actually being paid with American tax dollars, since they are by far the biggest donors to get places like Iraq "rebuilt".