4 ms·

So people are up in arms that Trump said things because, instead of taking them at face value (the US is overspending for other nations' security), they're read

by Mikeb85 10y ago

So people are up in arms that Trump said things because, instead of taking them at face value (the US is overspending for other nations' security), they're reading into it too much. Meanwhile Hillary and Obama (and the rest of the neo-cons opposing Trump) have been marching us strait towards WWIII with their antagonization of Russia.

jessaustin 10y ago
It's because Syria is a vital strategic interest, or something...
- WalterSear 10y ago
  Gas pipeline access is driving this proxy war.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    That might explain why Russia cares, but what would USA's interest be in a Syrian pipeline? We're fracking over here.
    - WalterSear 10y ago
      As I understand it: to keep Iran from the European gas market, to bolster gulf state allies, to maintain the petrodollar and to weaken Russia. "...strategic concerns, motivated by fear of expanding Iranian influence, impacted Syria primarily in relation to pipeline geopolitics. In 2009... Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets - albeit crucially bypassing Russia... Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar... The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports", according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/a... "Don’t let anyone fool you: As we have detailed since 2013, sectarian strife in Syria has been engineered to provide cover for a war for access to oil and gas, and the power and money that come along with it." http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-10/competing-gas-pipelines-are-fueling-syrian-war-migrant-crisis http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-10/competing-gas-pipel... "An Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline is unacceptable in the Beltway not only because US vassals lose, but most of all because in currency war terms it would bypass the petrodollar. Iranian gas from South Pars would be traded in an alternative basket of currencies." http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/08/syria-ultimate-pipelineistan-war/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/08/syria-ultimate-pipeli... "Many have questioned why Russia became involved in the Syrian war but often overlook the fight over natural gas. As Harvard Professor Mitchell A Orenstein and George Romer wrote last month inForeign Affairs, Russia currently supplies Europe with a quarter of the gas it uses for heating, cooking, fuel and other activities. In fact 80 per cent of the gas that Russian state-controlled company Gazprom produces is sold to Europe, so maintaining this crucial market is very important. But Europe doesn’t like being so reliant on Russia for fuel and has been trying to reduce its dependence. It’s a move that is supported by the United States as it would weaken Russian influence over Europe." http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/is-the-fight-over-a-gas-pipeline-fuelling-the-worlds-bloodiest-conflict/news-story/74efcba9554c10bd35e280b63a9afb74 http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/is-the-fight-over-a... "In 1989, Qatar and Iran began to develop the South Pars/North Dome field, which is buried 3,000 meters below the floor of the Persian Gulf. With 51 trillion cubic meters of gas and 50 billion cubic meters of liquid condensates, it is the largest natural gas field in the world. Approximately one-third of its riches lie in Iranian waters and two-thirds in Qatari ones. Since the discovery, Qatar has invested heavily in liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants and terminals that enable it to ship its gas around the world in tankers. Yet liquefaction and shipping increase total costs and, particularly as gas prices have slipped, Qatari gas has remained easily undercut in European markets by cheaper pipeline gas from Russia and elsewhere. And so, in 2009, Qatar proposed to build a pipeline to send its gas northwest via Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria to Turkey, an investment of billions of dollars up front that would reduce transportation costs over the long term. However, Syrian President Bashar al Assad refused to sign the plan; Russia, which did not want to see its position in European gas markets undermined, put him under intense pressure not to." http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-secret-stupid-saudi-us-deal-on-syria/5410130 http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-secret-stupid-saudi-us-deal...
      - jessaustin 10y ago
        That's a lot of info; thanks! This clarifies how certain evil bastards with lots of media and political pull have an interest, and emphasizes that USA as a whole can only lose by involvement in this mess.
meira 10y ago
And to protect ISIS! ISIS! Europe is going to be nuked while protecting ISIS. I Wonder how will we read about this in a few decades. Maybe the term "european" will be synomym of idiots.
- novalis78 10y ago
  ...it already does.
jerf 10y ago
I saw this article on HN this morning at zero comments, and I really expected to drive in to work and get there with 50+ comments going "Yeah! That's right!" I had this comment all planned out about how impressive it was to get HN to suddenly line up behind the neocon foreign policy establishment by just saying "Boo Trump!" in the right way. But it seems I've underestimated HN a bit; my compliments and apologies. I'll salvage the part where I point out this is basically an appeal to authority appealing to authority, and I don't necessarily trust either of the authorities. I do believe that there are some serious negotiations that take place and that there are things hidden from the public that are more serious than they may initially seem (both in the sense of being important and being treated more seriously than anything that makes the news), but when I look out into the world I still see an awful lot of official foreign policy maneuvers that do not seem to be the result of sober adult calculations for the best of humanity but still very much seem to be games of brinkmanship where the players stand to gain and the public and the world... and not to put to fine a point on it, but me and the ones I love, and you and the ones you love... are the ones that will pay if they lose. I haven't got much rational reason to trust the current foreign policy community and I've got no rational reason to accept Elizier as an authority on the matter. That is not to say either of those things is false... it is to say that I have no reason to accept them as true, and in the case of the foreign policy community, some rational reasons to distrust them. If I am wrong, because it turns out those are both reliable authorities, then the only rational conclusion is that both of these authorities should have tried much harder a long time ago to give me rational reasons to trust them more. Such things happen.
sesqu 10y ago
I believe the point was that while it's fine for Trump to say he isn't happy with the current NATO commitments, it's unacceptable for him to say he's not sure what he wants, is open to offers from both sides, and will make a decision last, from a position of power, when the stakes are suitably high. That is to say the problem is his use of the word "maybe", and following it up with a call for bribes instead of a call for consultation. It's not the breaking of old treaties that offends, it's the part where he refuses to offer his terms.
- sesqu 10y ago
  I wish to retract the bit about calling for offers, as that is not in the transcript. The transcript does underline unpredictability as a core value, however.

by Mikeb85 10y ago

jessaustin 10y ago

It's because Syria is a vital strategic interest, or something...

WalterSear 10y ago
Gas pipeline access is driving this proxy war.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  That might explain why Russia cares, but what would USA's interest be in a Syrian pipeline? We're fracking over here.
  - WalterSear 10y ago
    As I understand it: to keep Iran from the European gas market, to bolster gulf state allies, to maintain the petrodollar and to weaken Russia. "...strategic concerns, motivated by fear of expanding Iranian influence, impacted Syria primarily in relation to pipeline geopolitics. In 2009... Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets - albeit crucially bypassing Russia... Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar... The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports", according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/a... "Don’t let anyone fool you: As we have detailed since 2013, sectarian strife in Syria has been engineered to provide cover for a war for access to oil and gas, and the power and money that come along with it." http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-10/competing-gas-pipelines-are-fueling-syrian-war-migrant-crisis http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-10/competing-gas-pipel... "An Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline is unacceptable in the Beltway not only because US vassals lose, but most of all because in currency war terms it would bypass the petrodollar. Iranian gas from South Pars would be traded in an alternative basket of currencies." http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/08/syria-ultimate-pipelineistan-war/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/08/syria-ultimate-pipeli... "Many have questioned why Russia became involved in the Syrian war but often overlook the fight over natural gas. As Harvard Professor Mitchell A Orenstein and George Romer wrote last month inForeign Affairs, Russia currently supplies Europe with a quarter of the gas it uses for heating, cooking, fuel and other activities. In fact 80 per cent of the gas that Russian state-controlled company Gazprom produces is sold to Europe, so maintaining this crucial market is very important. But Europe doesn’t like being so reliant on Russia for fuel and has been trying to reduce its dependence. It’s a move that is supported by the United States as it would weaken Russian influence over Europe." http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/is-the-fight-over-a-gas-pipeline-fuelling-the-worlds-bloodiest-conflict/news-story/74efcba9554c10bd35e280b63a9afb74 http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/is-the-fight-over-a... "In 1989, Qatar and Iran began to develop the South Pars/North Dome field, which is buried 3,000 meters below the floor of the Persian Gulf. With 51 trillion cubic meters of gas and 50 billion cubic meters of liquid condensates, it is the largest natural gas field in the world. Approximately one-third of its riches lie in Iranian waters and two-thirds in Qatari ones. Since the discovery, Qatar has invested heavily in liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants and terminals that enable it to ship its gas around the world in tankers. Yet liquefaction and shipping increase total costs and, particularly as gas prices have slipped, Qatari gas has remained easily undercut in European markets by cheaper pipeline gas from Russia and elsewhere. And so, in 2009, Qatar proposed to build a pipeline to send its gas northwest via Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria to Turkey, an investment of billions of dollars up front that would reduce transportation costs over the long term. However, Syrian President Bashar al Assad refused to sign the plan; Russia, which did not want to see its position in European gas markets undermined, put him under intense pressure not to." http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-secret-stupid-saudi-us-deal-on-syria/5410130 http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-secret-stupid-saudi-us-deal...
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      That's a lot of info; thanks! This clarifies how certain evil bastards with lots of media and political pull have an interest, and emphasizes that USA as a whole can only lose by involvement in this mess.

meira 10y ago

And to protect ISIS! ISIS! Europe is going to be nuked while protecting ISIS. I Wonder how will we read about this in a few decades. Maybe the term "european" will be synomym of idiots.

novalis78 10y ago
...it already does.

jerf 10y ago

I saw this article on HN this morning at zero comments, and I really expected to drive in to work and get there with 50+ comments going "Yeah! That's right!" I had this comment all planned out about how impressive it was to get HN to suddenly line up behind the neocon foreign policy establishment by just saying "Boo Trump!" in the right way. But it seems I've underestimated HN a bit; my compliments and apologies. I'll salvage the part where I point out this is basically an appeal to authority appealing to authority, and I don't necessarily trust either of the authorities. I do believe that there are some serious negotiations that take place and that there are things hidden from the public that are more serious than they may initially seem (both in the sense of being important and being treated more seriously than anything that makes the news), but when I look out into the world I still see an awful lot of official foreign policy maneuvers that do not seem to be the result of sober adult calculations for the best of humanity but still very much seem to be games of brinkmanship where the players stand to gain and the public and the world... and not to put to fine a point on it, but me and the ones I love, and you and the ones you love... are the ones that will pay if they lose. I haven't got much rational reason to trust the current foreign policy community and I've got no rational reason to accept Elizier as an authority on the matter. That is not to say either of those things is false... it is to say that I have no reason to accept them as true, and in the case of the foreign policy community, some rational reasons to distrust them. If I am wrong, because it turns out those are both reliable authorities, then the only rational conclusion is that both of these authorities should have tried much harder a long time ago to give me rational reasons to trust them more. Such things happen.

sesqu 10y ago

I believe the point was that while it's fine for Trump to say he isn't happy with the current NATO commitments, it's unacceptable for him to say he's not sure what he wants, is open to offers from both sides, and will make a decision last, from a position of power, when the stakes are suitably high. That is to say the problem is his use of the word "maybe", and following it up with a call for bribes instead of a call for consultation. It's not the breaking of old treaties that offends, it's the part where he refuses to offer his terms.

sesqu 10y ago
I wish to retract the bit about calling for offers, as that is not in the transcript. The transcript does underline unpredictability as a core value, however.