If not attacking Syria caused a major economic collapse would you still be against a strike

[coldmountain]

It's become apparent the Saudis are willing to blackmail other nations to get their way in Syria from their threats against Russia. What if the Saudis screw up the world economy until NATO acts? Would you sacrifice your job or pay $5 per gallon gas?

[Warpy]

1. It's either them or the bankers

Let 'em threaten. They'd be cutting their own throats, as well.

[broiles]

2. Yes.

[Uncle Joe]

3. How are they blackmailing Russia?

Thanks for the thread, coldmountain.

[coldmountain]

8. Saudis offer Russia secret oil deal if it drops Syria?

Saudis offer Russia secret oil deal if it drops Syria

Saudi Arabia has secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia’s gas contracts, if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad regime in Syria.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html

WHERE THERE"S A CARROT, THERES USUALLY A STICK AND MANY CONSPIRACY SITES HAVE CLAIMS OF SAUDI TERRORIST ACTIONS AGAINST RUSSIA


Bandar told Putin, “There are many common values ??and goals that bring us together, most notably the fight against terrorism and extremism all over the world. Russia, the US, the EU and the Saudis agree on promoting and consolidating international peace and security. The terrorist threat is growing in light of the phenomena spawned by the Arab Spring. We have lost some regimes. And what we got in return were terrorist experiences, as evidenced by the experience of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the extremist groups in Libya. ... As an example, I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the Syrian territory’s direction without coordinating with us. These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence in Syria’s political future.”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-27/meet-saudi-arabias-bandar-bin-sultan-puppetmaster-behind-syrian-war

Gas Pipeline War in Syria

Iraq wasn’t about “weapons of mass destruction.” It was about oil. We borrowed the money from the Chinese so that we could make it safe for the Chinese and Exxon to frack Iraq. Bombing Syria is not about “chemical weapons of mass destruction.” It’s about a gas pipeline that has been proposed to take gas from Quatar to Europe – via Syria and Turkey.

Russia does not want the proposed gas pipeline to Europe, where they export most of their gas. So they support the Assad military dictatorship, their client and puppet, who has blocked it on their behalf.

The gulf Arabs want a new gas pipeline to Europe. The Turks want the pipeline to Europe. So they support the rebels who are trying to overthrow Assad.

http://blog.shaleshockmedia.org/2013/09/07/gas-pipeline-war-in-syria/

[Uncle Joe]

11. Well if that's the case, there is a silver lining

behind $5.00 a gallon gas.

We will much more quickly kick our addiction to life destroying fossil fuels and take our family jewels out of the hands of those autocratic dictators.

Aside from that it seems Russia hasn't/isn't backing away from Syria.

[Savannahmann]

4. If wishes were fishes.

The Saudi's have even less moral grounds than we do. I literally laughed and shook my head when the Saudi's declared Syria a Totalitarian regime. If you don't see the humor in a repressive totalitarian regime denouncing another, then you have no grasp of irony.

There is one reason to attack anyone else, and that is when a clear threat exists to your own people. There are two legal justifications. A threat to yourself, or a UN resolution. We have neither. Vague what if scenarios are not bad, but this one is a little weaker than the rest.

What if Russia fires on our ships to defend Syria? Are you willing to have a world war over the conduct of a civil war in Syria?

[HardTimes99]

6. + Infinity! - nt

[wandy]

5. Far more likley, after we engage in war............

the clock runs out on the debt ceiling. The republicans not only allow a government shutdown they encourage it. The US begins to loose first minor function due to layoffs then ever increasing stress on the economy. At some point the credit rating will again be degraded causing the war loans to become more expensive, stressing the economy further to the point of severe recession.
Do you believe that the republicans and their stakeholders would back down even were the country at war?
Even if every part of the Syrian war executed flawless, we face other enemys.

[Harmony Blue]

7. The Iranians could cause economic collapse as well

so the choice is a lose lose situation.

My position doesn't change.

[liberal_at_heart]

9. I think this started with Isreal putting pressure on US to act tough so we would discourage Iran.

It was just a lucky coincidence for the Saudis. They will take whatever they can get from the situation but I don't believe they will crash the economy in order to blackmail anybody. They know they have to carefully balance the oil supply or they will lose billions. When people start taking public transportaion and demand for oil starts going down, the Saudis often offer to put oil on the market to stabilize prices. The only reason they do this is to make sure the demand for their product is there. They certainly are not doing it for an altruistic reason, but they do know they have to keep a delicate balance or they will lose billions.

[tkmorris]

10. If ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that was true, I'd support a strike

Against Saudi Arabia.

Actually probably not, but you get my point I hope. Being more willing to kill Syrians due to the actions of Saudis is ethically wrong.

[customerserviceguy]

12. I don't see that as a realistic premise

I don't think the Saudis have enough power to raise the price of oil by that much. Even if the premise is true, then my answer is yes, because military action in Syria means that Assad has an incentive to widen the war by getting Israel involved, and that would make oil prices rise, too.

[2naSalit]

13. I would still be against a strike

and I would encourage folks on this continent to get their heads out of the sand and get moving forward on innovative energy generation like point source wind and solar power generators instead of massive wind and solar farms. This can be done and if there's little affordable oil around, we'll HAVE to get it together and do something like that. Unless our convenient access is taken away, we'll never get off our asses and make the shift from this crap to something better for us all. Nothing worth doing is easy or painless when it comes to an energy generation transition on the scale that needs to take place here. It will also help us defeat those who oppress us with their death grip on our lives by owning all the oil and access to it.

This a great opportunity to make a significant change and we shouldn't hesitate... this could be the first step.

[on point]

14. Of course I would be against it. Sick rational otherwise

[frylock]

15. is this like attacking afghanistan and iraq for something perpetrated by saudi arabia?

[bemildred]

16. All false future hypotheticals imply I still oppose a Syria strike. nt

[cali]

17. If ifs and ands were pots and pans and all the sea were ink and all the trees

were bread and cheese,

what would there be to drink???