Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[CrowBat]

Before this debate gets too heated for no reason, we already have proxies. We're supporting to some degree the FSA.

...the USA _supported_ the FSyA, and then with a little bit of 'non-lethal' aid: this was never enough to turn it into a true 'army' (in sense of what I described above), and stopped a few weeks ago. And since it's non-lethal aid, it shouldn't be 'classified'.

Measured by amount, AFAIK, Kuwait is providing most of support for insurgency, followed by Saudi Salafists (though not Wahhabists; these two are not the same), then Qataris etc.

But anyway, the FSyA was - in theory - a perfect proxy: non-religious, multi-ethnic, tollerant. The problem is (and remains), that its damn, stupid, non-religious, multi-ethnic and tollerant elements inside Syria, do not want to hear any kind of commands from a bunch of ex-Jihadi Moslem Brothers, various ex-political-oppositionals- (including quite a few ex-Leninists) cum-businessmen or ex-regime-members-cum-very-clever-talkingheads (with accounts on Austrian and Swiss banks, of course), that gathered outside of Syria in the last 40+ years. Simply because majority of these dumb revolutionaries that groupped within the FSyA have neither ever heard of these, nor do they find any useful reason for listening to their advice. So, if they didn't sell themselves already to the first idiotic Wahhabi from such an important place like Mauritania that run across their way, why should they sell themselves to anybody else?

That is a true 'bomb surprise', then this is what the revolutionaries have said right from the start - but, hell, that's the reason why such fine, 'freedom, liberty, democracy and free trade' loving nations like the USA can't cooperate with the FSyA, because those stupids do not want to accept a government they do not consider 'their'...

Sigh... when I think of the content of the last paragraph alone, I'm not surprised any more there are people like Dayuhan. Buddy: you simply cannot even imagine ever coming to the wet dream of cooperating with such people like the FSyA. You can't buy them, you can't bribe them, once you've given them the arms and money, you can't even control them.

OK, so instead of you demanding from me a detailled plan for how to instal a US-proxy in Syria, you'll get me to forget about this idea of mine.

I sincerely hope, you're felling better now, then your ideas have been proven 'correct' - beyond any doubt.

Unless we have the dominant proxy force we'll just prolong the fight and maintain some level of influence, but beyond that what exactly? If all we want is influence then good enough.

For a country that's maintaining military presence (or any kind of 'military installations') in more territories than there are members of the UN, you all sound very confused to me. :P

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

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.

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.

Given there are (very influential) people in the USA who have invested billions into getting oil and gas from Central Asia, and (less influential) people very curious to screw up the Ruskies and break their monopoloy on gas exports to the EU (thank you, Schrder!)... given there (also 'less influential', but definitely 'clever') people curious to screw up both the Saudis and the Ruskies, and export Qatari gas via Iraq and Syria to the EU too (no matter how much the Saudis insist on controlling such exports and Qataris say they've got enough liquid gas carriers to export their gas for the next 50 or so years).... Guess, that's got something to do with something called 'competition'. They say such 'things' might be of quite some importance in the USA... or was it that way in Albania?

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?

3.) I think there used to be one thing 'important' for the USA, in the 'good ol' times', called 'free trade'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it could be the USA fought one of their first wars ever precisely for the purpose of being able to run the free trade in the Med (it might be a hear-say, but rumour has it the affair was called something like 'Barbary Wars' or something of that kind...). Under Assads, there was no free trade in Syria: the entire economy was controlled by the rulling clique. A country of 20+ mil people in urgent need of complete reconstruction might therefore be interesting for investment, construction business - even tourism (consider how much was there to see, before the war, and hoping it's still going to be there when the war is over) etc.

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.

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. But guess, they would never in their wildest dreams come to such ideas like to create some sort of an imaginary threat - like few weeks ago when explaining to the Emiratis that they must buy plenty of additional F-16s, because Iran's getting S-300s from Russia (but sure!).

So, well, perhaps they wouldn't buy the F-16s or F-35s, but it could be... it is at least 'distantly imaginable'... that once they get themselves free from Assadists, Iranians and Hezbollah, the Syrians might come to the idea to rebuild their military and security services. 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.

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.

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?

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...

[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.

[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.

[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]

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'.