Middle East 14 - You know nothing ...

[Morienthar]

Why would US bombing Syria affect fuel prices?

Our(Indian) pipelines pass through Syrian borders.Closing them off means less oil gets through which in turn means that my 50 kilometer per liter Motorcycle will be harder to maintain.

Add to this the fall of the Rupee again due to higher fuel prices and soon enough I'll be spending 500-600 rupees every month on petrol.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

If you mean the rest of the world and the American public would have been more positive wrt an American strike if it was coupled with that specific demand, no argument there.

Yes. It's a no-lose proposition - assuming that your only motive for attacking is the use of chemical weapons. If he accepts, you've successfully stood up for the principle that the use of chemical weapons is not acceptable. If he declines, you've now made the issue more stark for the U.N. and the rest of the international community, and perhaps rallied more support at home. So why not make the demand?

But they didn't expect the Russians to come aboard with that, and indeed, I think 90 % of the reason the Russians did make this initiative in the first place was that Kerry pretty much said "Pshaw, like the Russians would ever do that!" They left Kerry with egg on his face, which was the only way this would happen at all.

You may be the first Norwegian in history to slip a "pshaw" so easily into a conversation.

Anyway, two points. First, I think the Russians would do this even without Kerry getting egg on his face because it benefits them. They've now put themselves into the driver's seat with respect to what happens next in Syria. They're currently drafting the "plan" for the weapons to be gathered, turned over, etc., and it undoubtedly will involve some form of cease fire in at least Damascas. They may use the Syrian promise to turn over weapons as leverage to get sanctions lifted, or to stop western intervention, or even to use it as a breathing space to send some advanced SAM's to Syria. At the minimum, it is a huge delay that gums up the entire works. Proposing this before Kerry's statement would have looked self-serving, and been unacceptable for all the reasons I just gave. But Kerry's gaffe meant that the offer couldn't be simply refused.

But second, I think it's interesting to note that a couple of Democrats who came out in opposition against the strikes this past weekend proposed something along the same lines -- namely, that Syria be given 45 days to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention and comply with its terms, or face "all elements of power" from the U.S..

http://www.cbsnews.c...ria-resolution/

So again, the real question is why the Administration ignored that Senate proposal, and/or didn't make one of its own along the lines of the Russian proposal, except with us being the ones to initiate it, and therefore more able to dictate its terms? I'm thinking now that the motive really was not to punish the use of chemical weapons, but rather to strike a blow at the Assad regime and tilt the battlefield towards the rebels. The use of chemical weapons was just an excuse.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I seriously hope the US doesn't go into Syria,Fuel is costly enough as it is here i.e 80 rupees a liter(About 1.5 dollars),I can't afford to pay more than that.

I'm confused by this. Crude oil gets pumped through Syrian pipelines to India? I mean, if we in the U.S. get it in tankers that leave the Gulf ports (and hence go nowhere near Syria), why wouldn't India?

Human Rights Watch have released their own report on the gas attack (warning: graphic).

The key evidence pointing to Syrian regime responsibility is the use of dozens of surface to surface rockets - a Syrian army delivery system not in evidence in the rebel arsenal - with chemical weapons warheads that appear to have been industrially produced by the Syrian regime.

I've never found the "it makes no sense for the Syrian government to use these weapons" argument very convincing. Governments and unit commanders do occasionally do stupid things. And if it really was the rebels, I'd imagine we would have heard instant, very loud outrage from the Syrian government itself demanding that the rebels be held accountable for such an atrocity. Instead, all we heard from the Syrian government when this happened was silence.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

John Kerry: Diplomatic genius

I can't believe how this thing seems to be unfolding.

Add to that his "unbelievably small" comment, and Joe Biden may have to worry about losing his gaffe title. Although Biden's gaffe's generally are harmless.

This whole thing is just strange. We've made terrible foreign policy blunders in the past, but we usually at least manage to make them look respectable at the time the decision is made.

Although....I have to say that this issue -- "what if Syria agrees to turn over its chemical weapons" -- seems to be one that the Administration should have already thought through, and had a prepared response. Even if Kerry hadn't gaffed it, what it he'd been asked specifically about that? Seems to me he would not have had an answer ready, yet it isn't that far-fetched a concept.

Or maybe the answer should have been something like "if they wanted to do that, they should have done it before murdering 1000 people. There have to be consequences for killing people other than just "here, take my poison, we won't do it again", and Kerry just fucked up when he extemporized.

[The Iceman of the North]

Our(Indian) pipelines pass through Syrian borders.Closing them off means less oil gets through which in turn means that my 50 kilometer per liter Motorcycle will be harder to maintain.

Add to this the fall of the Rupee again due to higher fuel prices and soon enough I'll be spending 500-600 rupees every month on petrol.

Really? I would assume that India got most of its oil from producers closer to India than Syria. What's wrong with oil from the Gulf States?

[flinn]

FLINN!

ALL CAPS ARGUMENTS LOOK RIDICULOUS!

FYI

Yeah well, sorry. Just starting to get "ridiculous" when people keep using the Qatar pipe-line as their example.

Qatar has nothing at all to do with this. Nothing.

Qatar wanted to run a natural gas pipeline from Qatar, through Saudi, Iraq, then into Turkey but Saudi said heck no. If there is going to be a pipeline it will be theirs, not Qatar's. Most people know Qatar and Saudi aren't necessarily best of friends.

The pipeline everyone is referring to is the one Saudi proposed a few years ago that would go through Jordan, through Syria, and then into Turkey near the coastline. Assad said no. Mainly because Russia has the lockdown on natural gas in Europe. If Syria allowed Saudi to run a pipeline then that would cut into Russia's natural gas dominance in Europe.

It isn't a conspiracy.

[KAH]

It isn't a conspiracy.

What is a conspiracy theory, is that pipelines are the main driver of Qatari , excuse me, Saudi intentions wrt Syria and the Syrian rebels. Just because Assad declined having a pipeline going through Syria, seems a piss poor reason for trying to tear him down.

1. It's not like the Saudi will go bankrupt anytime soon. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to find a state with less need of more petrodollars.

2. Whether it's a Qatari or a Saudi pipeline seems rather irrelevant to what kind of route the pipeline would take. The main point is, it does not have to go through Syria.

[KAH]

You may be the first Norwegian in history to slip a "pshaw" so easily into a conversation.

Well...to be fair to my countrymen of times past, they did not have the benefit of conversing by way of message board. :P

First, I think the Russians would do this even without Kerry getting egg on his face because it benefits them. They've now put themselves into the driver's seat with respect to what happens next in Syria. They're currently drafting the "plan" for the weapons to be gathered, turned over, etc., and it undoubtedly will involve some form of cease fire in at least Damascas. They may use the Syrian promise to turn over weapons as leverage to get sanctions lifted, or to stop western intervention, or even to use it as a breathing space to send some advanced SAM's to Syria. At the minimum, it is a huge delay that gums up the entire works. Proposing this before Kerry's statement would have looked self-serving, and been unacceptable for all the reasons I just gave. But Kerry's gaffe meant that the offer couldn't be simply refused.

The Russians have looked self-serving from day one, that didn't stop Obama from trying to get them on board before the chemical attacks. I fail to see how a proposal before Kerry said anything would have made it unacceptable.

The bare fact is that the Russians would be in the driving seat anyway, because they're the ones with real leverage over Assad, which again is a result of western reluctance to get really involved. And in Russia, tweaking the US nose always counts for something. Tweaking the US nose and coming out of it suddenly looking like they're constructive, is an irony Putin no doubt savors, but it does not take away from the fact that tweaking the US nose is what counts most.

[flinn]

What is a conspiracy theory, is that pipelines are the main driver of Qatari , excuse me, Saudi intentions wrt Syria and the Syrian rebels. Just because Assad declined having a pipeline going through Syria, seems a piss poor reason for trying to tear him down.

1. It's not like the Saudi will go bankrupt anytime soon. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to find a state with less need of more petrodollars.

2. Whether it's a Qatari or a Saudi pipeline seems rather irrelevant to what kind of route the pipeline would take. The main point is, it does not have to go through Syria.

Maybe not the main reason but there is no doubt that plays a role, adds another straw on the camels back, of Saudi wanting to remove Assad from power.

There is too much I don't know to say one way or another why the pipeline would or would not go through Syria.

Other than if you follow the route they originally proposed, the pipeline would be running up the western coast of Saudi through Jordan also on the west coast, into Syria which is also on the west coast. Either way, they seem intent upon that route, otherwise you would think they would have already gone around Syria.

It may be the geography that dictates the route. Coming out of Iraq into Turkey looks to be mountain ranges. Maybe there are already accessible routes through coming out of Syria into Turkey. I don't know.

[Sad King Billy]

John Kerry: Diplomatic genius

I can't believe how this thing seems to be unfolding.

Add to that his "unbelievably small" comment, and Joe Biden may have to worry about losing his gaffe title. Although Biden's gaffe's generally are harmless.

This whole thing is just strange. We've made terrible foreign policy blunders in the past, but we usually at least manage to make them look respectable at the time the decision is made.

Although....I have to say that this issue -- "what if Syria agrees to turn over its chemical weapons" -- seems to be one that the Administration should have already thought through, and had a prepared response. Even if Kerry hadn't gaffed it, what it he'd been asked specifically about that? Seems to me he would not have had an answer ready, yet it isn't that far-fetched a concept.

Or maybe the answer should have been something like "if they wanted to do that, they should have done it before murdering 1000 people. There have to be consequences for killing people other than just "here, take my poison, we won't do it again", and Kerry just fucked up when he extemporized.

What did I miss? I don't follow us politics anymore. All I saw was a Russian/Syrian suggestion for a peaceful solution (well, peaceful for anyone outside of Syria) and Kerry/the obama administration being reluctant to agree to it. Whether that's because they really want to launch some cruise missiles or because of more sane reasons is for other people to decide.

[KAH]

Other than if you follow the route they originally proposed, the pipeline would be running up the western coast of Saudi through Jordan also on the west coast, into Syria which is also on the west coast. Either way, they seem intent upon that route, otherwise you would think they would have already gone around Syria.

It may be the geography that dictates the route. Coming out of Iraq into Turkey looks to be mountain ranges. Maybe there are already accessible routes through coming out of Syria into Turkey. I don't know.

Here's an alternative possibility to your bolded part. The Saudis are not in any real rush to pump up their gas, and were perfectly willing to wait for Assad to change his mind, as the Russian dominance of the European gas market is a position they cannot truly hope to maintain in the long run, whatever Putin does.

Here's another alternative possibility. The Saudis changed their minds, and think they can find much better use for that gas at home - present Saudi electricity production is two-thirds based on oil and less than one-third based on natural gas. Halting the waste of the premium product (i.e. oil) would be a huge financial gain...as far as financial gains are needed.

Here's a third alternative possibility. Through LNG, natural gas is slowly but surely turning from a regional to a global, fungible commodity like oil. Couple that with huge increases in natural gas production (in particular in the US), and sinking massive resources in pipeline building seems a far riskier venture.

[Hannibal Barca]

I hope they do not intervene, otherwise things easily could turn out to be vary naste for us westerners. Our politicians don't share the same view about this conflict,though. The funniest thing is that if all those who support the idea of invading Syria to overthrow the current ruling family of the Assad would be instantly executed by those who they aim their support at.

[flinn]

Interesting stuff coming up. Two days ago two hostages held by rebels in Syria were freed.

Seems they have some enlightening things to say about the rebels and Assad.

Quirico and Piccinin

Google them and decide for yourself.

Oh yeah might help if you read Italian, but if not there are plenty of English sites popping up.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Interesting stuff coming up. Two days ago two hostages held by rebels in Syria were freed.

Seems they have some enlightening things to say about the rebels and Assad.

Quirico and Piccinin

Google them and decide for yourself.

Oh yeah might help if you read Italian, but if not there are plenty of English sites popping up.

It's fair to say that they're not helping the case for intervention.

[The Iceman of the North]

It's fair to say that they're not helping the case for intervention.

I wouldn't say that, more like any intervention needs to target both sides. ;)

[flinn]

Also very interesting that almost every country is talking about these two hostages but not one single mention in the U.S. media....

Obama knows the rebels did it, unfortunately it doesn't fit in his agenda.

[Morienthar]

I'm confused by this. Crude oil gets pumped through Syrian pipelines to India? I mean, if we in the U.S. get it in tankers that leave the Gulf ports (and hence go nowhere near Syria), why wouldn't India?

Really? I would assume that India got most of its oil from producers closer to India than Syria. What's wrong with oil from the Gulf States?

We get most of our Oil through Sudan,Syria,Iran,Lebanon and Nigeria.

Two of which pass directly in Syrian territory.

The Gulf States sell most of their oil to the NATO countries and sell very little to the asian countries.

[Derfel Cadarn]

And I WANT a PONY!!!

/like

[Derfel Cadarn]

Obama knows the rebels did it, unfortunately it doesn't fit in his agenda.

Since you've mastered mind-reading, can you delve my subconscious and tell me where my spare keys are? Much obliged.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

We get most of our Oil through Sudan,Syria,Iran,Lebanon and Nigeria.

Two of which pass directly in Syrian territory.

The Gulf States sell most of their oil to the NATO countries and sell very little to the asian countries.

That doesn't make any sense. Syria is not a major oil exporter at all -- only about 100k bbl/day to all countries. India consumes more than 3 million bbls/day. And as best as I can determine, Lebanon doesn't produce any oil at all, thought they're looking at exploration now.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=3110

http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=in&product=oil&graph=consumption

http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=LE

According to this chart, India's oil imports come overwhelmingly from the Gulf, including Iran, Iraq, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc., along with Nigeria. At least as of 2012, not a drop came from either Syria or Lebanon.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/06/india-crude-import-idINL4E8IU4HI20120806