[Junk Silver]

“...we acted not in our national interests, but out of democratist ideology.”

Bullshit. Obama and Clinton acted in the national interests of their Saudi and Qatari puppet masters who wanted to run a pipeline through Syria. That’s all this was about.

We actually might have a chance now to roll back some of the vile corruption that has overtaken our government, but the first step is to admit how low we’ve sunk. Please let’s dispense with this nonsense about our noble but misplaced ideological motivations.

[dynachrome]

democratist ideology

My take was that he meant the current “demo-rat” party stalinists.

[Tallguy]

You have it right. Strip it all away and this is about 2 competing pipeline projects that both need to run through Syria — Iranian (with Russia) and Saudi-Qatari (with US). Asad favored the Iranians and therefore Obama said he must go.

[nathanbedford]

Pat Buchanan, one of America's most insightful columnists observes:

To Iran, Assad is ... A crucial link in the Shiite Crescent that extends from Tehran to Baghdad to Damascus to Beirut.

To which should be added his observation:

Bashar Assad is Russia’s ally and provides Putin with his sole naval base in the Med.

And we have been talking about for so long, an axis, or Crescent if you prefer, involving Russia, fully armed with nuclear weapons, with naval access from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, possessed of much of the world's oil resources, positioned to invert nearly a century long balance of power, inclined toward terrorism and viciously anti-American.

Add China who have already cooperated with this frightening combination of players and we have an existential threat to the United States.

To those who believe that Vladimir Putin is benign, look at a map.

To Pat Buchanan, just because intervention one day is counterproductive does not mean that intervention another day is indispensable to our survival. The world looked entirely different on December 8, 1941.

[Paul R.]

“...we acted not in our national interests, but out of democratist ideology.”

Bullshit. Obama and Clinton acted in the national interests of their Saudi and Qatari puppet masters who wanted to run a pipeline through Syria. That’s all this was about.

It's both. And, more. Much more.

The first question to ask is: Who benefits the most from a pipeline from Saudi Arabia / Qatar to Europe? Secondarily, who is hurt the most?

Also, keep in mind that there is a competing pipeline plan: It would transport gas from Iran to the west coast of Syria, and then (via tankers?) on to Europe. The same questions apply.

The answer to the first question is that it is the Euros who would benefit most from that Saudi / Qatar - to- Europe pipeline. Europe's need to buy gas is somewhat more urgent than the Gulf States need to sell it -- the Gulf States won 't literally freeze to death in the winter if they don't sell what is at present a largely undeveloped resource. The Euros have the additional problem that they do NOT want to stay in a position where Putin can dictate to them because he has a near monopoly on the gas Europe needs (especially in certain countries.) This is particularly a problem for the globalists -- though it gets right down to the average European rather quickly, too, should a major dispute arise.

If Russia has real competition for gas (and oil) sales to Europe, they, and Putin, are "screwed" big-time. That of course would delight the globalists to no end. Prior to Trump, Russian nationalism was perhaps the globalists' biggest obstruction.

If the pipeline from Iran is built, and the Saudi / Qatari pipeline is blocked, then Europe becomes even MORE dependent on Putin's good will, and Russia's position in the ME is strengthened. This is a BIG problem for the Euros and the globalists.

Secondarily, the strengthening of Iran is also a major problem for the Saudis and their ME allies, and also for Israel. The Euros' & globalists' concerns would come first to the Obama Administration -- the Saudis / Qataris input just happens to be supportive.

All of this is exacerbated by the Euro's failed rush to "green", as well as foolish ideologies in the West.

I suspect it is also considered that "draining" the Russians in Syria is worthwhile. It may be, but the human cost is atrocious.

Sadly, if one looks at the cost to the West and it's allies for pursuing failed policies in the ME, just for the last 8 years, that money could have been spent building a Western alternative following the design of the Russian / Iranian plan: Pipe the petro to the coast (in this case the coast of Israel, or even Egypt), and short-run tanker it to Southern Europe. In the case of gasoline, the additional cost per liter comes to literally a penny or so. If Russia & Iran want to build their pipeline too, let 'em. Saudi / Qatari production costs (at least at the wellhead) should be lower...

This is necessarily a very abbreviated analysis. (I've completely left out the Turks, for one thing!) :-)

[momincombatboots]

Glad you posted.. I forgot about the pipeline. I honestly only remember mention of it,but no details.

[greeneyes]

I am thinking it was about the pipeline too. In addition, I think that certain elements also wanted to see anyone that had been within the Soviet circle of influence to be replaced. Also, perhaps the pipeline could make Europe totally independent of Russian oil, if necessary.

Whatever their reasoning or whether it’s just pure greed,
I just don’t think that we need to engage in total destruction of a whole country to get a regime change, so for whatever reason, the policies we have been following are an EPIC fail, and resulted in the death and suffering of millions.

I am posting a link - from Heritage Foundation - Protecting America Series - General Mattis Speaker - State of the World. Get a good look at General “Mad Dog” Mattis our soon to be Secretary of Defense. He speaks about Middle East, Russia, and China.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCD5zHBNWG8