Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Leaked E-Mails: Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests---NOT--- chemical weapon concern [View all]George II
(67,782 posts)47. "Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests"???
Based on a FIVE year old document? Come on, you're really stretching here. And of course, Snowden has to be thrown in the mix, too.
Give us a break.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
141 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Leaked E-Mails: Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests---NOT--- chemical weapon concern [View all]
kpete
Aug 2013
OP
BINGO! As is and has always been every other intervention/'humanitarian' mission in the ME. nt.
polly7
Aug 2013
#3
In the Middle East, follow the Imam, literally. Religious sectarianism trumps money.
Coyotl
Aug 2013
#13
Seriously? did anyone actually think any of our involvement in the Middle East was about WMDs
Snake Plissken
Aug 2013
#6
What you fail to acknowledge is #1. Diplomatic solutions are thwarted by PUTIN
KittyWampus
Aug 2013
#8
Speaking of diplomatic solutions, what do YOU think the American and Turkish ambassadors
JDPriestly
Aug 2013
#19
I'm surprised nobody here has pointed out that *that's not what the leaked documents say*
Recursion
Aug 2013
#100
You asked: "if it were about oil, why aren't we bombing Venezuela instead?"
Little Star
Sep 2013
#123
OK, tell me specifically what you think about this pipeline made war desirable?
Recursion
Sep 2013
#124
I am no expert on the subject so it will be hard for me to explain anything......
Little Star
Sep 2013
#125
I have searched DU. It's a bunch of links to pages about the existence of pipelines
Recursion
Sep 2013
#126
If I run across some of what I've read again I'll send you a link. It's out there. Peace.
Little Star
Sep 2013
#129
What's with this story? Rebels admit gas attack result of mishandling chemical weapons
Coyotl
Aug 2013
#11
Ah, relying on Sky News, The Examiner and World Net Daily. Says a lot for you.
KittyWampus
Aug 2013
#32
I'm not relying on anything, except to ask a question here. The long-time AP reporter is credible
Coyotl
Aug 2013
#61
I'm saying that it may be untrue because it hasn't appeared anywhere else and...
George II
Aug 2013
#72
A chemical release killing over 1,400 people is NOT "relatively few people died"
Coyotl
Aug 2013
#73
Thanks. Been wondering about that report and wondering why it hadn't been reported anywhere
lumpy
Sep 2013
#105
Are you claiming that the US, France, UK had no role in those regime changes and rebellions?
leveymg
Aug 2013
#30
No. But I"m also not blindly pointing out PNAC and applying it to all situations AND ignoring Putin
KittyWampus
Aug 2013
#33
You are the only one who seems to think this is all about PNAC on this thread nt
riderinthestorm
Aug 2013
#35
I guess you glossed right over mine (and a few others') points about religious
riderinthestorm
Aug 2013
#48
On that bridge you are talking about selling, the worlds powers around 1923 thought
MindMover
Aug 2013
#82
Why else would Obama send McCain and Graham to represent his administration in the Middle East?
Catherina
Aug 2013
#57
Bandar Boosh again. Keeps rearing his head in all these ME 'conflicts' and shamefully
sabrina 1
Aug 2013
#51
why would anyone hate the Guardian besides that it disproves their talking points?
yurbud
Aug 2013
#67
I don't buy that. You wouldn't BELIEVE how tightly tied these guys are.........
AverageJoe90
Aug 2013
#91
Global Research blog is the reference for information the original poster quoted in the DU post you
lumpy
Sep 2013
#114