3 ms·

"It would be cheaper to build through Iraq than destabilize an entire country." Except that at the time, Iraq was itself a highly unstable conflict zone. Build

"It would be cheaper to build through Iraq than destabilize an entire country." Except that at the time, Iraq was itself a highly unstable conflict zone. Building a pipeline in those conditions was not viable, and probably still isn't.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
petre 9y ago
Also Iraq is a buffer zone between SA and Iran which prevents Iran invading and taking control of the pipeline.
rgbrenner 9y ago
But we're comparing Iraq with destabilizing a country, re-securing it, establishing a relationship with the leaders, etc.. and then building a pipeline. Iraq is further along in that process.. than starting anew with Syria.
geezerjay 9y ago
> Except that at the time, Iraq was itself a highly unstable conflict zone. I fail to see how turning Syria into an unstable conflict zone would help.
- Reason077 9y ago
  Nobody set out to cause a long-lasting, destructive conflict in Syria. Those who were backing the opposition factions were no doubt hoping for a quick, orderly transition of power. But obviously it didn't work out that way.
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    Does it ever work out that way? This myth of USA military effectiveness isn't promoted in order to ensure transfers of power or [snicker, haha] natural gas in pipelines. It is promoted to ensure the continuing transfer of wealth from American taxpayers to armaments manufacturers and their sockpuppets in government and media.
  - geezerjay 9y ago
    > Nobody set out to cause a long-lasting, destructive conflict in Syria. That's precisely the point. Nobody set out to cause long-lasting, destructive conflict in Iraq as well. Furthermore, in Iraq there was a multinational coallition allocating hefty amounts of resourses to ensure a clean politically advantgeous outcome, while the war in Syria would be, according to that conspiracy theory, at best a covert operation leading to a drawn out conflict.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

petre 9y ago

Also Iraq is a buffer zone between SA and Iran which prevents Iran invading and taking control of the pipeline.

rgbrenner 9y ago

But we're comparing Iraq with destabilizing a country, re-securing it, establishing a relationship with the leaders, etc.. and then building a pipeline. Iraq is further along in that process.. than starting anew with Syria.

geezerjay 9y ago

> Except that at the time, Iraq was itself a highly unstable conflict zone. I fail to see how turning Syria into an unstable conflict zone would help.

Reason077 9y ago
Nobody set out to cause a long-lasting, destructive conflict in Syria. Those who were backing the opposition factions were no doubt hoping for a quick, orderly transition of power. But obviously it didn't work out that way.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  Does it ever work out that way? This myth of USA military effectiveness isn't promoted in order to ensure transfers of power or [snicker, haha] natural gas in pipelines. It is promoted to ensure the continuing transfer of wealth from American taxpayers to armaments manufacturers and their sockpuppets in government and media.
- geezerjay 9y ago
  > Nobody set out to cause a long-lasting, destructive conflict in Syria. That's precisely the point. Nobody set out to cause long-lasting, destructive conflict in Iraq as well. Furthermore, in Iraq there was a multinational coallition allocating hefty amounts of resourses to ensure a clean politically advantgeous outcome, while the war in Syria would be, according to that conspiracy theory, at best a covert operation leading to a drawn out conflict.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]