Jump to content
BANGKOK
snoop1130

Blood on his hands: 2020 Democrats slam Trump over Syria

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Guess the identity of a certain ignoramus who said the following to justify American troops return to Syria: 

 

"Some troops, he announced last week, would be returning to the country. But not to support those Kurdish allies, so vital in the US-led coalition's battle against Isis, but to "secure the oil," he repeated on Monday... 

“What I intend to do, perhaps, is make a deal with an ExxonMobil or one of our great companies to go in there and do it properly,” Trump said on Sunday."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-syria-oil-us-companies-middle-east-war-resources-a9175266.html

for as long as I remember, US has been working on ensuring stable oil supply.
For themselves, and we have to admit others benefitted as well, and did not object at all.

from the time of discovery of oil in the sandy deserts, in my perspective, a divide and rule policy has been in place.
Then, with the first oil crisis (was that about 50 years ago already?) the tide started turning, and instead of pre-empting the fragmentation, to me it seems the policies were directed at keeping the oil producing countries divided.
Goal: access to (cheaper than domestically produced) crude oil.

But as you pointed out already, currently Syria does not have a big crude production, some 30.000 bpd. which is between 5 and 10 % of pre-war output of 380.000 what in current listings would be about 30th place. Instead, Syria is now ranked 59 in list of producers. (alongside Ivory Coast, almost as much as Ukraine or New Zealand)

As for Syrian oil, India and China were and are invested, and as far as I know Anglo-Dutch Shell and French Total left about 8 years ago as did Exxon even earlier.

Apparently, there is an agreement that states:
In accordance with an energy cooperation framework agreement signed in late January (2018), Russia will have exclusive rights to produce oil and gas in Syria.https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Russia-Is-Taking-Over-Syrias-Oil-And-Gas.html )

So why Exxon-Mobil would now want to come back to Syria?
(as Mr. T, let me rephrase that I don't want to insult anyone)
While as usual not talking about what other people agreed and expecting others to turn on their allies just as the Great-USofA under the present leadership seems to be doing, the present Prez said:
""
“What I intend to do, perhaps, is make a deal with an ExxonMobil or one of our great companies to go in there and do it properly,” Trump said on Sunday."  
""
In other words, the great President d DT suggests they could make a deal with him (sic.)
In doing so, he seems to be assuming to be above the Law and above Assad and Russia, India and China.
I Say, DT makes an agreement with Exxon concerning, in and for another country! 
Well that must be all right then, if he says so. What will we do there:

Repairing the huge damage (as it happens by great ordinance from various great suppliers) done to the oil infrastructure, and
then claim a great feat of creating a great oil production of tenfold the historical during the war time 
(yet much lower then the peak of 677.000 bpd ? ) ! 
This of course with a proviso that the repairs and replacements do not get blown up after the work.

Any Great company with some 50 billion plus USD cash at hand can do that, provided they get the future cash flow.
to achieve this, one needs to be Great, but not necessarily American or a Great tweeter.

If not for oil, then why control Syria?
(which Russia effectively is achieving, the earlier mentioned agreement supports that theory ) 
to have a foothold in the center of the area, a bigger say in the Eastern Mediterranean, 
next to Iraq, not too far from Iran, control pipelines into Europe, 

and possibly for buffering other friendly territories (which, depending on the party gaining most influence) as well.

In that context, to give up control over Northern Syria in exchange for military bases is something I could understand.
(but to let Kurdish Allies walk the plank, I don't.)

Then, is USA a net Energy Exporter as headlines tried to tell ?  
No, it is not. As before, as an importer they benefit from lower prices.
An analysis of the factual situation here:.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/12/09/no-the-u-s-is-not-a-net-exporter-of-crude-oil/#7fbdfeb44ac1 

Edited by KKr
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually who started the war was the Dems which is a part of the shadow government. 

In Syria like in Libya, and more than a dozen of sovereign States. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, zhounan said:

Actually who started the war was the Dems which is a part of the shadow government. 

In Syria like in Libya, and more than a dozen of sovereign States. 

George W. Bush was a Democrat?

  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

those betrayed by Trump should be given the option of emigrating to the USA.

yes indeed.
hence the multicultural society Europe is now enjoying.
a) taking responsibility for indigenous soldiers who fought the Colonial Powers' war.
b) taking responsibility for Colonial past.
c) is more difficult,
the current migration to Europe and other countries, one could argue as being provoked by militants who left the migrants no other choice but: Leave or Die.
Hence, and as I believe nobody ever becomes a refugee of his own volition, it is great that so many people are finding a new home and, in my opinion, they should return the favor by within reason adapting to the society that is their now home country.
The hosts are not guilty that they became refugees, and apparently the host country has done some things better than the country they fled, otherwise they would not have left.
Learn from each other and live in peace ! 
 

Edited by KKr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off-topic posts and replies removed. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump’s Syria pullout that isn’t

President Donald Trump’s decision to send troops to protect oil fields in Syria means the U.S. may have as many troops in the country — or potentially more — as when he took office, undermining his repeated pledge to end a “forever war” in the Middle East.

Commanders are now moving additional forces and armored vehicles into Syria’s war-torn, oil-rich Deir ez-Zor province. Some are being sent to reoccupy bases they abandoned just last week, after Trump abruptly ordered them to pull out from the area.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/31/trump-syria-oil-field-mission-062510

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Confusion reigns over US plan to 'secure the oil' in Syria as commanders await orders
Nearly three weeks after President Donald Trump ordered troops out of northern Syria, publicly declaring he was taking "control" of the oil and sending troops and armored carriers to protect it from ISIS, US commanders lack clarity on the most basic aspects of their mission, including how and when troops can fire their weapons and what, exactly, that mission is.
The lack of precise orders means troops are on the ground while critical details are still being worked out -- exactly where they will go, when and how they will stay on small bases in the area, and when they go on patrol.
Perhaps most crucially, there is no clarity about exactly who they are operating against in the oilfields.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bristolboy said:
Confusion reigns over US plan to 'secure the oil' in Syria as commanders await orders
Nearly three weeks after President Donald Trump ordered troops out of northern Syria, publicly declaring he was taking "control" of the oil and sending troops and armored carriers to protect it from ISIS, US commanders lack clarity on the most basic aspects of their mission, including how and when troops can fire their weapons and what, exactly, that mission is.
The lack of precise orders means troops are on the ground while critical details are still being worked out -- exactly where they will go, when and how they will stay on small bases in the area, and when they go on patrol.
Perhaps most crucially, there is no clarity about exactly who they are operating against in the oilfields.

It should be simple. Get out of this regional regime change war. I'm disappointed with anything short of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2019 at 9:11 PM, Eric Loh said:

Russia, Assad and ISIL agree with you. 

Using your exact same logic, the US will have to send troops to every regional war on the planet. I object to that. We should have never been in Syria to begin with. Trump should have gotten us out of there completely on day one.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Using your exact same logic, the US will have to send troops to every regional war on the planet. I object to that. We should have never been in Syria to begin with. Trump should have gotten us out of there completely on day one.

No. It's just that the US made allies there and now it's. dropping them. And it could even be OK to drop them if it was done in a decent fashion. This is twice now that Trump has made such a decision on the spur-of-the-moment for Syria. He could at least have had the decency to give the Kurds some advance warning. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...