Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[carl]

Yea, me.

[JMA]

We have the green light for joint Title 50 (CIA and other intel agencies) - Title 10 (DoD) operations. The questions go to the wisdom of when and where to use them - and how much.

Exactly!

When, where, HOW and on what scale.

The how requires more than a little bit of 'skill and cunning'

[jmm99]

Woops; you're ahead of me - thanks - Preventing AQ Expansion

Could you copy these posts over to the new thread ?

These posts in this thread, Syria under Bashir Assad: crumbling now?

## 456 through 461

These posts in the thread, Kashmir: a simmering, sometimes brutal small war

## 61 through 65

Then everyone can present their views on what I think is very important topic.

Regards

Mike

Moderator adds: Copying done and original posts endorsed (ends).

[Dayuhan]

Let's be 'rude', and bring it to the bottom line. Or few, 'really important', bottom lines:

That's not rude, that's considerate... and on this thread, quite unprecedented. Thank you.

1.) In Syria, there's a population of 20+ million, 90% of which is younger than 60% and 80% younger than 30. That means: either one leaves something like 15 million of youngsters there to the mercy of all the possible extremists, and then pays the price for the next 40-50 years (unless they all either run out of steam or kill themselves in various suicide terrorist attacks), or there is an interest to 'do something' to prevent that from happening.

Feel free to pick your choice.

Are you suggesting that if America doesn't rescue Syria, all those young Syrians will become suicide bombers, or that we have to rescue the Syrians so they won't hate us down the line? That sounds a very speculative proposition. For one thing, the assumption that US involvement would improve the situation in Syria or conjure up a favorable resolution is speculative at best. Your apparent assumption that the FSA is an ideal proxy and would win if given money is speculative at best. We have heard this sort of stuff before: there’s always a faction around that somebody things would make everything better if only the US would throw a lot of money at them. Needless to say, it doesn’t generally work out that way. I see very little reason to suspect that this problem can be solved by throwing American money at it. “It will be a terrible mess if you don’t get involved” is a very poor argument unless it goes along with a very persuasive argument that it will not become an equally large mess if we do get involved. I don’t see that persuasive argument being presented here. The track record of efforts to improve messes by throwing money at them is not impressive, to say the least.

2.) Syria might not swim in oil, but it's got some, and there is gas too (supposedly, there is a lot of both of it there, but it's so deep and there is no infrastructure to exploit it, it would cost some to get it; so, 'never mind'). Plus, a) the country is a 'hole' in the pipeline spanning all the countries around the Mediterranean, and b) it lies on the possible route for pipelines between specific other places (some say Iraq, but who can know...), and the EU. Under the present regime, that's never going to change, or if (i.e. say, the regime survives and then finally constructs that pipeline), then 'even that' oil/gas source, plus the pipeline in question is going to end in Russian hands. ...

...Perhaps I'm just simply mixing plenty of things. Who knows? Whatever... provided I'm not, this all might mean: hey, there could be something called 'economic interest' to 'do something' too?!?

But perhaps that with 'economic interest' is something we should better leave to the Russians... or Chinese?

Yes, you’re just mixing plenty of things. It’s called clutching at straws.

Oil, gas, and pipelines always work their way into these conversations, usually invoked by conspiracy theorists convinced that the US is eagerly seeking an excuse to intervene. In Syria, (as in Afghanistan, where conspiracy theorists uised to invoke pipelines as a casus belli on an almost daily basis), claims of energy interests just don’t stand up to examination.

Syria isn’t swimming in oil; it’s not even wading in oil. Reserves and production are nowhere near enough to be worth getting involved in a fight over. The US has also learned from Iraq that getting into the fight doesn’t mean American companies get the oil contracts: even if there was enough oil to be worth fighting over, that doesn’t mean intervention would assure any kind of economic payoff for the US.

Syria is in no way essential to any pipeline plans, other than the loosely proposed Iran-Iraq-Syria “friendship pipeline”, which is not something the US would be terribly interested in promoting. BTC and TANAP run through Turkey. Nabucco was planned to run through Turkey. A Qatar-Iraq pipeline doesn’t need to run through Syria; it can just as easily go direct to Turkey… if the Saudis approve it, which they probably won’t. There was a minor pipeline from Kirkuk going through Syria, but it’s been out of commission for years and nobody seems terribly interested in rehabilitating it. Syria is a hole in the pipeline network for a reason: it’s irrelevant. Nobody needs or wants to go through it. For Central Asian output the route through Turkey is more direct and more politically stable, no need to mess with Syria. In any event the threat to Russian control of Central Asian oil and gas exports doesn’t come from pipelines running west, it comes from the much larger eastbound pipelines that the Chinese are building. That of course means little or nothing to the US; it’s something for China, Russia, and the Central Asian states to thrash out.

If you want to talk about economic interests, you need to look at cost/risk/benefit equations, and in the case of Syria there’s just not enough prospective benefit to justify the cost and risk. No major or even significant economic interests are at stake.

3.) I think there used to be one thing 'important' for the USA, in the 'good ol' times', called 'free trade'...

But, who knows? Perhaps the good ol' USA are not interested in such things like free trade and commerce any more...

Please, tell me that's so, and I'll surely feel better.

You can feel better. Whether or not the Syrian economy is free is a matter of near zero significance to the US. Of course there’s always a mild preference for free trade, but not enough to get mixed up in a proxy war over. Again, costs and benefits: the economic benefit to the US of regime change in Syria are too hypothetical and too small to justify a proxy war.

[Dayuhan]

4.) I know that Assad regime was 'popular' because it was proven as 'no danger' for Israel. And that there are enough talkin'heads who would always prefer him to any kind of extremist- but especially any kind of 'pluralist/democratic' administration in Syria (imagine there being no threat for Israel coming from Syria any more... geek!) So, such a development might be 'bad' for big defence business....

...It might be of some significance - I don't know, teach me please - that they'll have to buy all the equipment and arms for these... And in connection with that about free trade and then the point 5 (see below), well, perhaps that might make the country interesting...?

No? Ok, then not.

No. Just… no. Not even close to being part of the equation.

5.) Another positive effect of such a development would...no, I'm daydreaming again, and I'm not specific enough... but well, I'll complete this thought as well, you like it or not... could be the Iranian loss of influence in the area, especially safe 'land-' (after airborne via Iraq and Turkey) connections to the Hezbollah. Some say that this would be good in preventing Hezbollah - an organization that might be on a few lists of 'terrorist organizations' around the world, who can know? - from getting even more arms than it already has. Perhaps this is in some sort of US and/or Western interest too?

Ah, that's NOT interesting any more? Oh, then sorry for such a stupid idea.

This is the Saudi argument: we have to get involved to stick it to Iran and Hezbollah. That of course goes back to fallacy #1: the assumption that a viable proxy exists that would be capable of sticking it to Iran and Hezbollah. That remains very much uncertain. While seeing Iran and Hezbollah take one in the chops might be a favorable outcome, it remains a very hypothetical outcome and by no means the most likely one. Proxy wars in general are not very attractive, because the outcome depends largely on matters outside your control, mainly on your proxy. Going into a matter as serious as war with so little control over the outcome is not a very attractive proposition. You could take this argument to the US Government and propose that in a best case scenario you could do significant damage to Iran and Hezbollah. They’d note that, and ask you about the outcomes, probabilities, and consequences of less than best case scenarios. You’d need a pretty persuasive answer. Bottom line: while the US might want to see Iran and Hezbollah hurt in Syria, it doesn’t need to see that outcome. It is not a vital or even a pressing interest. Going to war, by proxy or otherwise, is not something to be done just because there’s a chance of hurting someone you dislike.

6.) Last but not least, I've heard there are not few people crazy enough to think that the US help for Syrian insurgents would recover the US image between such of its 'allies' like KSA, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar etc. - most of which meanwhile (some since longer) actually consider the USA an enemy (if for no other reason then because they concluded that Washington has sold the 'Arab Iraq' to 'Iranian Shi'a takfirs').

Ah yes... sorry: since when do USA care any more about their image in the world?

There might be a few people crazy enough to think that, but not many. Arming American proxies and sending them out to fight Saudi, Kuwaiti, and Qatari proxies (yes, our proxies and theirs would fight each other, probably just as energetically as they fight the regime) seems hardly calculated to enhance American standing in any of those countries.
Those concerned with America’s “image in the world” will reflect that involvement in foreign wars, by proxy or otherwise, has traditionally diminished, rather than enhanced, the American image in the eyes of the world. Our propensity for diving into other people’s fights is one of the single largest factors driving our rather lousy image in the world. Getting involved in yet another one is not likely to enhance that image. Certainly the Saudis would like to see the US slap Assad and the Iranians for them, but the Saudis need to understand that we are not their attack dog.

Excuse me for disturbing you with all of this, dear Americans. Never mind. After writing all of this down, it's crystal even to such a stupid like me that the USA _cannot_ - repeat: cannot - have any kind of 'vital', even less so any kind of 'important' reasons, and definitely no chance of ever finding any kind of 'objectives' of getting involved there...

It’s not disturbing at all. It’s almost amusing. There’s nothing new or original here, and nothing very convincing. The reasons are weak, and the objectives remain unspecified.

Put yourself in the shoes of an American President trying to sell the populace on a proxy war using these arguments. Would you even try?

Obviously these are my own opinions. You don’t have to look very hard, though, to observe that the US government and populace perceive no vital or pressing US interest at stake in Syria. There is absolutely no evidence of any significant support base for involvement, directly or by proxy. The Democrats aren’t interested. The Republicans aren’t interested. The Tea Party and the left are not interested. The polls show no interest. The media, the commentators, the pundits report no interest. It’s just not there… and at the end of the day, American interests are determined and defined by Americans. If they don’t think there are vital interests at stake, there aren’t.

[Dayuhan]

Bill, using proxies is one thing but using them effectively is quite another.

What we see is another example of rank incompetence by all except the Russians (who once again have the measure of the US).

So the method is...

Accuse everyone of incompetence. Offer no suggestion of what the competent would have done.

If asked what a competent response would be, speak in broad generalities that offer no hint of what you think should be done or have been done.

If anyone points out that the broad generalities offer no hint of what you think should be or should have been done, retreat behind a thin haze of juvenile ad hominem remarks.

Undignified, but predictable.

[JMA]

Again an example of puerile high school debating style.

To identify an obvious cock-up is sufficient - there is no requirement to offer an alternative or a solution.

Are you of the lunatic opinion that if an alternative is not offered then the cock-up is acceptable?

(Been through this debating Afghanistan where the school yard retort of "you do better then" was often tossed out by the blind loyalists to a lost cause. As I said then and I will say now that free of White House policy insanity you give me access to the intel and country background - importantly the religo-cultural stuff - and I will put together a better solution using a platoon of 20 year old officer cadets with no previous military experience as my planning staff.)

The obvious foreign policy incompetence of this US Administration can't be blamed on Bush as there is no overlap as in Afghanistan. Unless some Obama sycophant is prepared to suggest that the disintegration of the Syrian state, the death of 150,000 odd people, millions of displaced and refugees was considered to be an acceptable outcome by the clowns in the White House.

This outcome is in US interests? LOL...

I am quite happy to discuss options but - I'm afraid - I can't be bothered with an ex-Peace Corps agricultural whatever. So I won't be bothering explaining anything to you, sorry.

Go play with Crowbat ... I suggest you have limited time left there until Crowbat also tires of your game.

So the method is...

Accuse everyone of incompetence. Offer no suggestion of what the competent would have done.

If asked what a competent response would be, speak in broad generalities that offer no hint of what you think should be done or have been done.

If anyone points out that the broad generalities offer no hint of what you think should be or should have been done, retreat behind a thin haze of juvenile ad hominem remarks.

Undignified, but predictable.

[CrowBat]

Are you suggesting that if America doesn't rescue Syria, all those young Syrians will become suicide bombers, or that we have to rescue the Syrians so they won't hate us down the line? That sounds a very speculative proposition. For one thing, the assumption that US involvement would improve the situation in Syria or conjure up a favorable resolution is speculative at best.

Another childish answer. You know, the word 'future' has that one issue: EVERYTHING is 'speculative'.

Unless one starts doing something about it.

Your apparent assumption that the FSA is an ideal proxy and would win if given money is speculative at best.

I didn't mention 'FSA' with a single word. That's your imagination at work here.

I see very little reason to suspect that this problem can be solved by throwing American money at it. “It will be a terrible mess if you don’t get involved” is a very poor argument unless it goes along with a very persuasive argument that it will not become an equally large mess if we do get involved.

Oh, but sure.

A simple question here: what did the USA do in Afghanistan of the 1990s?

Yes, you’re just mixing plenty of things. It’s called clutching at straws.

Oil, gas, and pipelines always work their way into these conversations, usually invoked by conspiracy theorists convinced that the US is eagerly seeking an excuse to intervene. In Syria, (as in Afghanistan, where conspiracy theorists uised to invoke pipelines as a casus belli on an almost daily basis), claims of energy interests just don’t stand up to examination.

Another childish answer. I must be no 'conspiracy theorist' to know:

a) that Clinton's admin was (seriously) negotiating with Taliban over a possible gas pipeline over Afghanistan, back in the mid-1990s, but foremost

b) that there are quite a lot of US businessmen with very serious interest in Syria. Now, surely: the problem they have is that they are simply not influential enough, primarily because they're neither of the sort screaming 'AQ is everywhere', nor of the sort screaming 'that's not our business'.

But, that's not making such like you right. On the contrary, your lack of knowledge about relevant issues is nothing else but your, very own, failure - and also a reason why do you come to the idea to babble that the US have 'no interest' in Syria. The situation is rather that most of the US is exactly like you: entirely clueless about Syria.

Syria is in no way essential to any pipeline plans...

Here we go, Mr. 'I have no clue about Syria': it doesn't matter what is your perception, but what is the perception of people who did their homework and are convinced the country is important (and, and explained above, it's not really the fault of the people in question that they're neither screaming 'AQ is everywhere' nor 'that's not our business').

blah-blah about different pipeline projects etc....
...There was a minor pipeline from Kirkuk going through Syria, but it’s been out of commission for years and nobody seems terribly interested in rehabilitating it.

And more of childish answers. Here just one example over one issue which is the easiest to counter. The - in your words - 'minor' pipelineS (the K, T and H pipelines) constructed by the British in the 1930s were crucial for future development of most of adjacent areas (just check the development of all the towns/cities, airfields/air bases, highways etc. ever since). Contrary to you, the people living there know about this very well. And, no matter how long out of commission (officially since the quarrel between the Iraqi and Syrian Ba'athists, in the 1960s), the K+T pipelines were easily returned to service by Iraqis and Syrians in the 1990s, when Assads were curious in earning handsome profits from smuggling Iraqi oil out of the country.

What stopped this practice, i.e. why are these pipelines not in service nowadays? Well, 'certain' invasion from 2003, and continuous insistence on survival of Assadist regime.

Should that mean they are 'inoperational', or 'out of commission'?

Hahahahaha...

So, we're back to the same conclusion like before: no matter how eloquent you might be in regards of wonderful wording of your answers (really, you've got an 'A' from me here), you simply have no clue about the situation 'in situ'.

Syria is a hole in the pipeline network for a reason: it’s irrelevant.

Once again you're providing ample evidence of lacking qualifications necessary to discuss this topic in any kind of useful fashion.

Alone the fact that you obviously have no clue about all the efforts related to the EAM pipeline back in the 2000s (spoiled through 'intervention' by Stroytransgaz on behalf of 'somebody else'), shows that quite nicely. Otherwise you would never come to such a silly idea as to declare this for 'nobody needs or wants it' (sorry, but no matter how funny I found your answer: alone thinking the way you do - not to talk about stating such nonsense in written form and in public - is plain dumb).

...not to talk that you, like so many others, are simply unable to 'connect the dots' and put all of what I mentioned into a single context: why doing that when it's 'much more important' to 'win' a pissing contest on some internet forum...?

If you want to talk about economic interests, you need to look at cost/risk/benefit equations...

For your info: I'm living from doing exactly that, on weekly basis, and the answer is always crystal clear. A reason more to conclude your argumentation for 'ranging from childish to naive'.

You can feel better. Whether or not the Syrian economy is free is a matter of near zero significance to the US.

No, I can't. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it, or not (and no matter whether I like and agree with it or not): from the standpoint of US business establishment, 'free trade' is starting with 'free energy supply trade'. This is non-existing in Syria, and therefore your argumentation is simply failed. Now go and try teaching 'them' that 'they are wrong'.

[CrowBat]

No. Just… no. Not even close to being part of the equation.

Aha. So, just one example: it doesn't matter and is 'no part of the equation' that the Lockheed Martin was gauging how many F-16s is it going to sell to 'rebuilt Iraq' already as of November 2002?

Such things are 'no part of the equation' - for whom? For people as clueless and as naive as you?

This is the Saudi argument: we have to get involved to stick it to Iran and Hezbollah.

Aha. That is a 'Saudi argument'?

ROFL! I'm now - finally - in tears. From laughing.

There might be a few people crazy enough to think that, but not many. Arming American proxies and sending them out to fight Saudi, Kuwaiti, and Qatari proxies (yes, our proxies and theirs would fight each other, probably just as energetically as they fight the regime) seems hardly calculated to enhance American standing in any of those countries.

...and this is beyond 'childish': it's outright laughable.

Do you want to seriously discuss this topic, or are you all the time simply trying to entertain me, Dayuhan?

If latter: you're extremely successful. You're about to become my absolute favourite, right after Benny Hill and Dave Martin, of course.

Those concerned with America’s “image in the world” will reflect that involvement in foreign wars, by proxy or otherwise, has traditionally diminished, rather than enhanced, the American image in the eyes of the world...

...I just hit the table with my forehead again. From laughing...

This was a joke of the day. Perhaps of the week too. Now I can't stop laughing any more... can hardly type...you're really THAT funny.

<snip>
Obviously these are my own opinions. You don’t have to look very hard, though, to observe that the US government and populace perceive...

In a moment between two laughs, I can only reply that except to the US government and populace, nobody that really matters cares about opinions of either. Which is making the entire issue completely surplus: neither the US government, nor the populace, are decisive. Only money is. And with money, one can buy both, the government and the populace.

But, it was - really - a very funny read, very entertaining, so much is sure. I'm still laughing and my wife is having that 'what the hell' expression on her face. Well done, Joker.

[CrowBat]

So the method is...

Accuse everyone of incompetence.

Not 'everyone' - just you.

And the reason is that every single of your sentences is pointing at you being incompetent - when it comes to Syria. You are excellent in providing eloquently worded discussion (should I ever need a 'spokesperson', you'll get a well-paid job, that's 1000% sure, don't worry).

But, the content of what you say (at least in this thread) is superficial and often bordering on nonsense (sorry, you've provided too much evidence for this, but for me to express it in any other way), simply because you have no clue about Syria - but are 'still' sternously convinced that you do.

The problem people like you pose is the folowing: you're - really, I'm not exaggerating here - so clueless, that countering every single sentence you posted here would require people like me to write an entire book (literaly), just in order to provide people like you with something like 'similar' (even though still insufficient) depth of perception. Others are at least asking questions, asking for explanations, checking if what they've read 'somewhere' is anywhere near reality or not. But not you: you are 100% convinced about something you have proven not to have clue about.

It's ironic - and tragic at the same time - that the internet is providing a 1st-class platform for such like you. See here with what kind of negative consequences in the case of Syria:

'Sex Jihad' and Other Lies: Assad's Elaborate Disinformation Campaign

Syrian President Assad's regime is waging a PR campaign to spread stories that discredit its rivals and distract from its own crimes. Aided by gullible networks and foreign media, it has included tales of rebels engaging in "sex jihad" and massacring Christians.

In the wake of the poison gas massacre on Aug. 21, the regime in Damascus has launched a major PR offensive. Beyond the official line of propaganda, though, there is a second campaign: a secret and elaborately staged effort to sow doubt and confusion -- and divert attention away from the Syrian government's own crimes. Like many of these bogus news stories, the sex jihad tales aim to convince supporters at home and critics abroad of the rebels' monstrous depravity.

No other leader in the region -- not Saddam Hussein in Iraq, nor Moammar Gadhafi in Libya -- has relied as heavily on propaganda as Assad. His PR teams and state media are churning out a steady stream of partially or completely fabricated new stories about acts of terror against Christians, al-Qaeda's rise to power and the imminent destabilization of the entire region. These stories are circulated by Russian and Iranian broadcasters, as well as Christian networks, and are eventually picked up by Western media.

One prime example is the legend of orgies with terrorists: The 16-year-old presented on state TV comes from a prominent oppositional family in Daraa. When the regime failed to capture her father, she was abducted by security forces on her way home from school in November 2012. During the same TV program, a second woman confessed that she had submitted to group sex with the fanatical Al-Nusra Front. According to her family, though, she was arrested at the University of Damascus while protesting against Assad. Both young women are still missing. Their families say that they were forced to make the televised statements -- and that the allegation of sex jihad is a lie.

An alleged Tunisian sex jihadist also dismissed the stories when she was contacted by Arab media: "All lies!", she said. She admitted that she had been to Syria, but as a nurse. She says she is married and has since fled to Jordan.

Two human rights organizations have been trying to substantiate the sex jihad stories, but have so far come up empty-handed. It appears that the Tunisian interior minister had other motives for jumping on this rumor: Hundreds of Islamists have left his country and traveled to Syria, and he is apparently trying to stem the tide by discrediting these fighters. Furthermore, Sheikh Mohammad al-Arifi, the man who is allegedly behind the sex jihad fatwa, denies everything. "No person in their right mind would approve of such a thing," he says.
...

This also includes the myth of the beheading of a bishop -- a story also spread by Assad in an interview with SPIEGEL. The fact of the matter is that a jihadist from Dagestan killed three men in this way, but they weren't Christians. After getting the stamp of approval from the official news agency of the Vatican, such rumors generated by Assad's propaganda machine are circulated around the world as bona-fide new stories.

The facts were twisted in a similar manner when an image of a woman tied to a pillar in Aleppo appeared on the LiveLeak video portal in mid-September. The website claimed that the woman was a Christian from Aleppo who had been abducted by al-Qaida rebels. In reality, although the photo was taken in Aleppo, it dates back to a period when Assad's troops still controlled the entire city. A video of the scene, posted on YouTube on June 12, 2012, shows regime-loyal militias berating the woman.

The regime also concocted the legend of the destruction of the Christian village of Maaloula. In early September, rebels belonging to three groups, including al-Nusra, attacked two military posts on the outskirts of town held by members of the local Assad-loyal Shabiha militias. Then the rebels withdrew. But the regime's version, which even managed to become an Associated Press story, was as follows: Foreign terrorists looted and burned down churches -- and even threatened to behead Christians who refused to convert to Islam.

This didn't match with reports from the nuns of the Thekla convent in Maaloula and the Greek Orthodox patriarch of Antioch. They said that nothing had been damaged and no one had been threatened on account of their beliefs. A reporter from the satellite news network Russia Today unwittingly cleared up the confusion. While accompanying the Syrian army, he filmed the tank attack on Maaloula -- in which the local monastery was shelled.

This ongoing reinterpretation of events reflects a conscious policy -- and bending the truth is much easier now that Syria has become such a confusing and chaotic theater of war. Most news publications shy away from the risks and efforts of verifying stories on the ground. Actual events, such as when jihadists burned down a church in the northern Syrian town of Rakka, are mixed together with trumped-up atrocities staged to sway global opinion.
...

After the poison gas attack in August, though, the propaganda cover-up failed. Inundated by a global wave of indignation, the regime floundered in its attempts to explain the situation. First, Assad said that nothing had happened. Then state television showed images of an alleged rebel hideout containing a barrel with the blatantly obvious label: "Made in Saudia." The TV report maintained that this was sarin gas from Saudi Arabia for "terrorists" who had inadvertently gassed themselves to death.

The source of the story was a little known news website called Mint Press, based in the northern US state of Minnesota. One of the authors later denied having anything to do with the research. The other, a young Jordanian who writes under a number of pseudonyms, merely responded to queries by saying that he was currently studying in Iran.
...

[Dayuhan]

Not 'everyone' - just you.

The actual reference was:

What we see is another example of rank incompetence by all except the Russians (who once again have the measure of the US).

Somehow I don't think "all except the Russians was meant to mean me. I don't even think the Russians have done all that well at this one: they are attached to a dictator facing what's likely to be a prolonged and intractable insurgency, which is never a congenial place to be. The best outcome they can hope for is to restore the status quo ante, which is neither a significant gain for them or a significant loss for the US. They have something to lose and very little to gain, hardly evidence of "having the measure" of anyone.

See here with what kind of negative consequences in the case of Syria

Yes, there's a great deal of ham-handed propaganda going around. So what? What does that have to do with US involvement or non-involvement, and of what is it supposedly a "consequence"? How is the citation in any way relevant to the matter under discussion?

[Dayuhan]

To identify an obvious cock-up is sufficient - there is no requirement to offer an alternative or a solution.

Very true. But if you wish to attribute that cock-up to a specific cause, that claim has to be supported. For example, a claim that the situation in Syria is a complete cock-up can stand on its own as self-evident. A claim that the situation in Syria is a specifically American cock-up would require some sort of supporting logic or evidence to be taken seriously, as the US has no natural or inherent responsibility for events in Syria. If you could credibly claim that the US was a primary cause of the situation in Syria, you might have something... but that seems a pretty remote "if".

Unless some Obama sycophant is prepared to suggest that the disintegration of the Syrian state, the death of 150,000 odd people, millions of displaced and refugees was considered to be an acceptable outcome by the clowns in the White House.

This outcome is in US interests? LOL...

Only a concern if it's an outcome of American action or inaction... and to claim the the latter case, there would have to be a credible argument that action would have produced a more desirable outcome. If Syrians decide to kill other Syrians, that's Syrian business, not American business. The outcome you cite may not be ideal, but it's not ours. There are worse ones out there: like the same mess with the US up to its eyeballs in it.

[Dayuhan]

Another childish answer. You know, the word 'future' has that one issue: EVERYTHING is 'speculative'.

Unless one starts doing something about it.

"Doing something about it" doesn't make it any less speculative, because you don't know what the outcome of your action will be. You might pretend you know, you might even believe you know, but you still don't know. For any proposed action there's a wide range of possible outcomes. Many of them are undesirable. The only certainty is that once you start "doing something about it" you are henceforth in it, with all that entails. A problem that was once other people's has become yours. That's already an undesirable outcome, unless there's a very strong reason to believe that "doing something" is going to have a positive outcome. No compelling evidence has presented to support that idea.

I didn't mention 'FSA' with a single word. That's your imagination at work here.

Free Syrian Army... or had you another ideal proxy to propose? Same dog by any acronym. The question is does the dog hunt, or more to the point, does the dog hunt well enough to justify an infusion of American cash and all the risk and mess inherent with adopting a proxy. The Oboama administration's answer to that question is apparently "no". They certainly have information that we don't have, but even based on what's publicly available that seems a reasonable conclusion.

I must be no 'conspiracy theorist' to know:

a) that Clinton's admin was (seriously) negotiating with Taliban over a possible gas pipeline over Afghanistan, back in the mid-1990s

Yes, we all know this. The conspiracy theorists blew it into some vast game-changing geostrategic imperative, which of course it never was. It was a reasonable bit of bait to throw the Taliban in an effort to get them to drop bin Laden and move a little bit closer to the other side... didn't work, but was worth a try. It was never something of vast importance to the US, and it was certainly never anything worth going to war over.

b) that there are quite a lot of US businessmen with very serious interest in Syria. Now, surely: the problem they have is that they are simply not influential enough, primarily because they're neither of the sort screaming 'AQ is everywhere', nor of the sort screaming 'that's not our business'.

Get a grip. Pipeline proposals are a dime a dozen, and there are American businessmen all over the place. That doesn't create a vital national interest, and it certainly doesn't create a reason to get involved in a war.

What you don't seem to grasp is that Syria is not necessary for the flow of oil gas from any point to any other point. It's not necessary to get gas from Qatar to Europe, or Iran to Europe, or the Caspian basin to Europe. Somebody might talk about a route through Syria, or even make a deal if the terms on offer were good. They would not need Syria. If Syria doesn't work out, there are alternate routes. That doesn't mean no business would ever be done, but it absolutely means that business does not constitute anything even vaguely resembling a vital national interest for the US. Threatening to take Turkey out of the pipeline grid might be a vital national interest to some European states, and a pressing (though not vital) interest to the US, but Syria is not Turkey. Not even close.

In general the importance of Central Asian hydrocarbons to the US is way overstated in many quarters. Geography dictates that Central Asian output is not going to flow to the US. Where it does flow is not of much significance to Americans, as long as it comes onto the market. Ten years ago a desire to bring Central Asian reserves out of the Russian transit net might have been a matter of concern (though hardly a vital national interest), but even that concern has faded: the Chinese have accomplished that goal more effectively than the US ever could have.

Not to say that Central Asian energy resources are of no importance at all to the US, but not important enough to go to war over. There are many interests that are not vital or pressing. Business going on is not a cause to go to war, by proxy or otherwise, unless the business in question is of great importance. In Syria, it's just not.

But, that's not making such like you right. On the contrary, your lack of knowledge about relevant issues is nothing else but your, very own, failure - and also a reason why do you come to the idea to babble that the US have 'no interest' in Syria. The situation is rather that most of the US is exactly like you: entirely clueless about Syria.

Youi don't seem to have a clue about what a vital national interest is, because the things you're proposing aren't even remotely close to important enough to go to war over, whether directly or by proxy.

all the efforts related to the EAM pipeline back in the 2000s (spoiled through 'intervention' by Stroytransgaz on behalf of 'somebody else')

Like I said, pipeline proposals are a dime a dozen. Most of them never get off the ground. That most often isn't about any cloak and dagger skullduggery, it's more often because they couldn't get financing, they couldn't lock in supply sources, or they had transit rights issues, or the consortium had internal issues, and on and on and on. Of course there's always somebody out there who will speculate about dirty work, and there's always someone out there who believes the speculation.

...not to talk that you, like so many others, are simply unable to 'connect the dots' and put all of what I mentioned into a single context:

I'm trying to point out to you that you're seeing dots that don't exist. A fruitless effort, probably, if you honestly believe the off chance that a pipeline might someday pass through Syria could possibly constitute a significant enough interest to justify taking sides in the Syrian civil war.

For your info: I'm living from doing exactly that, on weekly basis, and the answer is always crystal clear.

The output of your cost-benefit evaluation will depend on the assumptions you put in. Based on what I'm seeing here, I'd imagine yours to be derived from the realm of fantasy. You of course are entitled to believe that those who fail to share your fantasies and connect the imaginary dots that pass before your eyes are ignorant, but that doesn't the fantasies or the dots real. You will notice, perhaps that your conclusions do not appear to be shared by any western government. Is that because they are all ignorant... or is it perhaps because they see something you don't: that jumping into this mess is a fools errand with minimal probability of gain and very substantial probability of loss?

No, I can't. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it, or not (and no matter whether I like and agree with it or not): from the standpoint of US business establishment, 'free trade' is starting with 'free energy supply trade'. This is non-existing in Syria, and therefore your argumentation is simply failed. Now go and try teaching 'them' that 'they are wrong'.

I don't even know who "they" are, but I know that you are wrong. Not about the lack of free energy supply trade in Syria, that's obvious. What you're wrong about is the idea that anyone cares, or needs to. It's not important enough to go to war over, because, again, Syria just isn't that important to international energy trade. Its reserves are minor, and it's not a necessary transit route... not to say that it might never be a transit route, but it's not a necessary one. If Syria falls apart, nobody in the energy trade will lose: the flow will just move around Syria. No different than the proposed Afghan pipeline. It wasn't built, nobody cares. Turkmenistan found other places to sell their gas. India and Pakistan found other suppliers... they still occasionally talk about building the pipeline, but it will probably never happen, because the Turkmen would rather deal with the Chinese (logically enough) and India and Pakistan can buy more easily from the Gulf and Iran.

It's just not that big a deal. Not worth getting involved in a war over. Not even close.

[Dayuhan]

Aha. So, just one example: it doesn't matter and is 'no part of the equation' that the Lockheed Martin was gauging how many F-16s is it going to sell to 'rebuilt Iraq' already as of November 2002?

Such things are 'no part of the equation' - for whom? For people as clueless and as naive as you?

Let me put this as simply as possible. Lockheed Martin sells airplanes. The US government makes US foreign policy decisions. They are not the same thing. Expecting the US to get involved in a proxy war on the off chance that maybe our proxy wins and maybe if they do they will buy airplanes from Lockheed Martin is just beyond ridiculous. If Syria ever stabilizes and decides to buy airplanes, the US government might very well lobby for Lockheed Martin. They are not going to get involved in a war to try to get a government in place that will buy planes from Lockheed Martin. Not even a remote consideration.

In the darkest fantasies of the Chomsky crowd, the US goes to war to open up markets for American defense manufacturers. In reality, they don't.

Aha. That is a 'Saudi argument'?

Yes. Like it or not, it is. The US government seems disinclined to serve as attack dog for the Saudis, or to place Saudi interests ahead of American interests. The Saudis fond this offensive. They need to learn to deal with it.

ROFL! I'm now - finally - in tears. From laughing.

This was a joke of the day. Perhaps of the week too. Now I can't stop laughing any more... can hardly type...you're really THAT funny.

When you finish laughing, recall that you have to go back to Korea to find a foreign war that enhanced the international image of the United States. You might also reflect that the chorus of global voices urging the US toward involvement in Syria is deafeningly nonexistent, suggesting that stepping into that mess would not exactly win any vast reserve of approval. You might also recall that only complete lunatics would contemplate getting involved in a war in the hope that it might make somebody somewhere like them more. Going to war requires, again, that a vital national interest be at stake, and that is not one by even the remotest stretch of the imagination.

I can only reply that except to the US government and populace, nobody that really matters cares about opinions of either. Which is making the entire issue completely surplus: neither the US government, nor the populace, are decisive. Only money is. And with money, one can buy both, the government and the populace.

What government or populace do you propose to buy? The Saudis have money to burn, but they haven't been able to persuade the Syrian, Russia, or American governments to do their bidding, though they have tried in each case. If it's money that does the talking in the US, you have to assume that those with the money share the opinion of the government and populace: getting involved in Syria is just not worth the trouble. You may disagree, but you're going to need a way better argument if you want anyone to listen.

[davidbfpo]

A fascinating explanation or an assessment whether the two 'enemies' are in fact 'friends':http://warontherocks.com/2014/01/wit...-assad-regime/

A rather pithy final sentence, which does not convince me:

Instead, the West will look to the Syrian opposition and their supporters, who in the service of a just cause found the temptation of jihadi shock troops too much to resist.

[davidbfpo]

A lengthy interview, which some diligent watchers have welcomed, of:

Ake Sellstrom, Chief UN weapons inspector in Syria, tells Gwyn Winfield
about the challenges of doing a CWA inspection in the twenty-first century

Link:http://www.cbrneworld.com/_uploads/d...eb_2014_v2.pdf

Within is the cautionary note only 5% of the regime's chemical stockpile has been removed, so the deadline will be missed.

[CrowBat]

Yes, there's a great deal of ham-handed propaganda going around. So what? What does that have to do with US involvement or non-involvement, and of what is it supposedly a "consequence"? How is the citation in any way relevant to the matter under discussion?

You really need even 'most elementary basics' explained?

That's beyond laughable...

Is it beyond your ability to comprehend that loads of such PRBS - whether related to inner- or foreign policy of Syria since something like 70 years - loads of such PRBS about oil and gas reserves of Syria, about that country being 'unimportant' for oil/gas flow, loads of such PRBS about insurgency in Syria, about presence and influence of 'Islamist extremists' in Syria, about the nature of the Assadist regime, etc., etc., etc. are creating such images of that country like yours: 'not important', 'not our problem' etc.?

You're complaining I have no clue about this or that, while it's you who so obviously has absolutely no trace of clue at least about importance of the area known as 'Syria' for 300+ millions of Arabs (plus 50 million Shi'a Iranians and then various others)?!?

But of course 'not', because you're so well-informed that you even come to the ideas to say nonsense of the following kind:

Lockheed Martin sells airplanes. The US government makes US foreign policy decisions. They are not the same thing. Expecting the US to get involved in a proxy war on the off chance that maybe our proxy wins and maybe if they do they will buy airplanes from Lockheed Martin is just beyond ridiculous. If Syria ever stabilizes and decides to buy airplanes, the US government might very well lobby for Lockheed Martin.

Dayuhan, baby: back in the 1950s it was certain - much smaller and far less influential - corporation named 'United Fruits' that brought the USA to launch an intervention in Guatemala. But, you're going to explain me that nowadays corporations like LM are 'not important' and 'not interested' in cases like Iraq, Syria etc.?

After seeing that, I'm not the least surprised you have 'skilfully' ignored my question about 'what did the USA do in Afghanistan of the 1990s'?

Obviously, you have no clue about the answer about such 'unimportant' things. So, I'll not insist. But, in another place, you're quasi-asking me 'what government and what populace' do I suggest to buy?

Is that your serious? Do I now need to explain you the basics of how the USA function - too?

Or do you 'just' prefer to ignore that? Perhaps you want to imply that no US government, and no dozens of thousands of votes have ever - ever, ever, ever - been bought in the history of the USA, whether by various corporations or private interests?? Would you like to say that no corporations and no private interests have any kind of influence upon the US government? Congress? US domestic and foreign policy?

Dayuhan, considering the....ho-hum.... 'quality'... of what you post here, I'll end this one with a multiple choice question suitable for your level. You are either
a) fresh out of elementary school? Or
b) first time on planet Earth, fresh from a 15-light years trip from one of planets circling Gliese 876?

***********

A fascinating explanation or an assessment whether the two 'enemies' are in fact 'friends':http://warontherocks.com/2014/01/wit...-assad-regime/

A rather pithy final sentence, which does not convince me...

He is drawing some really strange conclusions in the 'centre' of that piece too.

For example, he's explaining how the 'suggestion that an ISIS-Assad alliance is plausible is not evidence that an explicit relationship actually exists'. Then he's mentioning that some of links were 'ideological' (which ones, please?), while not emphasising the 'criminal' side of this affair strongly enough.

Problem: I already mentioned how the smuggling of Libyan Islamists via Syria worked. That was purely a 'commercial/criminal' enterprise. It had absolutely nothing to do with 'ideology', only with 'making money'.

Now, some here might recall the terminus 'Shabiha' - probably from the early days of this uprising in Syria. Precisely: this is a well-established criminal network run by members of wider Assad family - often in conjunction with various intelligence services - already decades before the uprising in Syria began. Shabiha could be seen on the streets of Syria already in the 1970s. Sure, Shabihas were no 'one smuggling network', but dozens of them. Foremost they were THE smuggling network in Syria. They were omnipresent and incredibly powerful, controlling much of Syrian cigarettes-, cell-phones-, DVDs-, fire-arms-, and even some of fuel market in the 1990s and 2000s. The government not only 'could not do anything against them': it was directly cooperating with them and profiting from Shabiha activities because they were sharing their profit with Assads.

Specific example: street markets in Damascus of the 2000s were full of piratized copies of various Western 'block-buster' movies, printed on DVDs. One could buy them extremely cheaply (less than 50 Cents apiece). 'However': no such movies would have been permitted for spread in the Syrian public (whether in cinemas or as DVDs) without the consent of the Unit 255 of the General Intelligence (or 'Security') Directorate (Idarat al-Amn al-Amn), or 'SSI'. Actually, most of movies in question were originally purchased by members of intelligence services abroad, then copied by the Unit 255 SSI and then distributed to Shabiha (of course, they had to pay 'royalties' for every single DVD) 'for sale' on street markets.

Therefore, the regime was actively involved in supporting 'smuggling' circles. And since 2011, the Shabiha are paying back their dues: they are not only actively deployed to suppress protesting (as a sort of para-military force), but also to maintain links to the ISIS, existing from the 'good ol' mid-2000s'.

Then, the author writes:

The further claim that the Assad regime does not target ISIS territory, despite being a common talking point among opposition figures, is thus far empirically unsubstantiated.

Well, it's kind of hard to provide 'empiric evidence' - for something that's neither existing nor happening, isn't it?

Or:

While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, there is no public smoking gun that Assad is collaborating directly with ISIS.

Oh really? So, because the author does not know that Assadist regime is buying oil directly from the ISIS - which is in control of most important Syrian oilfields, and much of the relevant pipeline (ending in Homs, i.e. parts of Homs under regime control) - 'there is no smoking gun'?

Makes one wonder: what is, or should be one?

In other place, he's monitoring this conflict the way Dayuhan does:

Likewise, Ahrar al-Sham has traditionally portrayed itself as a Salafi organization focused only an Islamic state in Syria, which has facilitated strong ties to the Gulf states such as Qatar and Kuwait. But, the group’s leadership, most notably Abu Khalid al-Suri, has longstanding ties to al-Qaeda leaders and recently announced that he considers himself following their path.

...and it's 'entirely impossible', I guess, that corresponding statements by al-Suri could be related to promises of even more money, arms, ammo and equipment, if he would say precisely something of that kind?

Probably because the author never heard of something of this kind happening ever - ever, ever, ever - in Syria before....?

Namely, and perhaps I'm an exception: I do recall the times when al-Suri - who is a Salafist, no doubt, but definitely no Wahhabist - was ridiculing certain Mauritanian Wahhabist preachers for calling for Jihad in Syria, and publicly refusing the idea of inviting Saudi Wahhabists to come fighting in Syria. That's making one wonder: how comes he changed his mind about this issue, i.e. what's usually having such effect like making people change their opinions...?

Finally:

Regardless of the precise extent of Assad’s relationship with ISIS, the more important story about the rise of al-Qaeda in Syria is that the opposition and their supporters made the tragic strategic blunder of tolerating and sometimes enabling al-Qaeda linked organizations. That does not vindicate or validate Assad, who is a murderous criminal that deserves to be overthrown, but it must not be ignored lest other organizations and countries make similar mistakes.

Perhaps the author would like to learn more about Syrians, especially their ->> 'culture of being friendly' described by Ake Sellstrom in that interview linked by David...?

Specifically: 'The culture is very friendly, they are chronically friendly and it is within their religion to be friendly to foreigners and take care of people...'

[Dayuhan]

Is it beyond your ability to comprehend that loads of such PRBS - whether related to inner- or foreign policy of Syria since something like 70 years - loads of such PRBS about oil and gas reserves of Syria, about that country being 'unimportant' for oil/gas flow, loads of such PRBS about insurgency in Syria, about presence and influence of 'Islamist extremists' in Syria, about the nature of the Assadist regime, etc., etc., etc. are creating such images of that country like yours: 'not important', 'not our problem' etc.?

Take a deep beath. Recite your mantra, if required. Achieve calm. Now remind yourself: you set out to demonstrate that the US has vital or even pressing national interests at stake in Syria. So far, that effort is an epic fail. Try again if you will, but please try harder.

Despite the desperate ravings of the conspiracy theory crowd, nothing happening in Syria is "all about oil". Syria's proven reserves are unexceptional and most production is consumed domestically. There might be some potential for exploration, but nowhere near enough to constitute a meaningful national interest for the US or a reason for getting involved in the war.

Syria is also not all that important to oil or gas transit, certainly not important enough to justify involvement in a civil war. If Syria drops out of the pipeline grid, oil and gas will still flow. They just won't flow through Syria, and of course they don't have to: there are plenty of other options. There is no proposed pipeline route through Syria that couldn't be replaced by an alternate route if needed. Nothing there worth getting involved in a war over. Not even close.

If we're looking for any vital or pressing US interest, we can safely eliminate hydrocarbon reserves or transit as issues.

You're complaining I have no clue about this or that, while it's you who so obviously has absolutely no trace of clue at least about importance of the area known as 'Syria' for 300+ millions of Arabs (plus 50 million Shi'a Iranians and then various others)?!?

The question on the table is whether it's sufficiently important to Americans to justify involvement in a civil war. Its importance to Arabs is quite peripheral to that question.

back in the 1950s it was certain - much smaller and far less influential - corporation named 'United Fruits' that brought the USA to launch an intervention in Guatemala. But, you're going to explain me that nowadays corporations like LM are 'not important' and 'not interested' in cases like Iraq, Syria etc.?

We all know what happened in the 1950s. We also all know the 1950s are history.

I do not know whether or not Lockheed Martin is interested in Syria. It is, however, abundantly clear that the US Government is not interested in getting involved in the Syrian Civil War. That leaves 2 possibilities.

1. Lockheed Martin wants the US to get involved, but doesn't have the influence to make it happen.

2. Lockheed Martin has the influence, but doesn't care enough to use it to force US involvement.

If Lockheed Martin had both the interest and the influence to drive US involvement in Syria, the US would be involved. Since the US is not getting involved in any significant way, we know that Lockheed Martin lacks either the involvement or the interest to drive involvement, very likely both.

After seeing that, I'm not the least surprised you have 'skilfully' ignored my question about 'what did the USA do in Afghanistan of the 1990s'?

I answered it, but you apparently weren't paying attention. The US offered a pipeline deal tot he Taliban. This was essentially bait, an effort to bribe the Taliban to drop bin Laden and establish a business relationship with Western interests. It didn't work, but it was worth a try. The pipeline could have been a matter of some significance to Afghanistan, but it had little to know significance to the US other than as a lever on the Taliban. The only payoff to the US would have been a contract for Unocal.

We can see this pretty clearly: the pipeline was never built, and may never be built... has anyone been negatively affected, other than Afghanistan? Turkmenistan is still exporting its gas, and it doesn't matter to the US whether it goes to China or to Pakistan and India. Pakistan and India buy their gas elsewhere. Unocal got bought out by Chevron. The proposal failed in its intended purpose, and was shelved. No big deal. It was never an issue worth going to war over.

Or do you 'just' prefer to ignore that? Perhaps you want to imply that no US government, and no dozens of thousands of votes have ever - ever, ever, ever - been bought in the history of the USA, whether by various corporations or private interests?? Would you like to say that no corporations and no private interests have any kind of influence upon the US government? Congress? US domestic and foreign policy?

They have influence, but not control. Their influence is mixed in with other influences. Their influence is also not unanimous: corporations and private capital lobby for and pursue their own interests, and they aren't always consistent. On the subject of Syria, however, there is a remarkable amount of unanimity in the US: nobody, anywhere, shows any sign of seeing a vital or pressing US interest. There's no pressure from the corporate sector to get involved. The oil and gas industry isn't pressing for involvement. Neither is anyone else.

As with Lockheed Martin, if you're going to argue that corporate interests control the US, you have to assume that corporate interests are not interested in getting involved in the Syrian Civil War, because if they had control and wanted involvement, there would be involvement.

Now, would you like to try to explain what vital or pressing US interest you believe exists in Syria that could be a reasonable motive for involvement?

[CrowBat]

Take a deep beath. Recite your mantra, if required. Achieve calm....

Except for laughing all the time (while reading your posts), I'm perfectly calm, thanks.

Actually, my only problem is that I'm lacking time to have even more fun with you.

Syria is also not all that important....

And even if you repeat it 150 times - a 'proven' tactics when it comes to Syria, no doubt - it's not going to become truth. So, the only 'epic fail' I see here is your own argumentation. As so often, it's based on nothing else but ignorance.

The question on the table is whether it's sufficiently important to Americans to justify involvement in a civil war. Its importance to Arabs is quite peripheral to that question.

Thanks! First you babble about 'US image is ruined' ('already since Korean War'), and then - in response to my explanation about ruined US image in the Arab world and explanation that there is a need to change this, and about importance of Syria for Arabs - you come back to tell me that 'importance of Syria to Arabs is quite peripheral to that question'...?

You're so preocuppied distorting my statements in order to prove me wrong, that you're meanwhile contradicting yourself. But you wonder why am I all the time laughing about you?

We all know what happened in the 1950s. We also all know the 1950s are history.

Aha. So, that's 'history', so you must insist you CAN'T learn anything from that? But Syria is 'future', which you can't influence (or which is unimportant, and 'pure guessing'), eh?

I'm running out of smileys...

I answered it, but you apparently weren't paying attention.

No, you didn't. You were more than happy to start babbling about the issue on Clinton admin's negotiations with Taliban.

Or, would you like to say that this was all the USA did in Afghanistan in the 1990s?

They have influence, but not control.

Wait, wait, wat: so, 'they' do have 'influence'?!? Wow! Eureka! If you keep on getting it in this fashion, you might manage to understand the system and what I'm talking about all thet time - in only about some 15-16 years from now.

So, how do 'they' maintain that influence? By having nice eyes - or by bribing.... oh damn, sorry: I used that word again.... 'lobbying' the political sector?

Now, would you like to try to explain what vital or pressing US interest you believe exists in Syria that could be a reasonable motive for involvement?

OK. So, you're back to insisting on ignoring everything that's said to you? No problem. Go few posts back and _read_ what I wrote. After _reading_ what I wrote, try also to _understand_ what I wrote.

If there is something that's unclear to you, and provided you do not suffer from dyslexie (if so, let me know: then I'll stop laughing, that's a promise), you'll 'get it', sooner or later: just go back and re-read what I posted.

[JMA]

You're so preocuppied distorting my statements in order to prove me wrong, that you're meanwhile contradicting yourself. But you wonder why am I all the time laughing about you?

Crowbat that happens around here with him and on the Journal with some others.

It is a major distraction which seems to be tolerated. Strange.

My position on this type of contribution is simple - the moderators should insist that HE provides an alternative rather merely seeking to irritate other contributors with incessant nit-picking. I wonder why they don't.

It appears I have had a few posts deleted - which is irritating in itself.