Last week president Trump gave the ordered and the United states navey launced sixty tomahawk missles on al shayrat airbase stating that those missles were representing the world. However just as in the case of the Iraqi war the rest of the world did nothing but sit back and give lip service riding the back of the U.S. military. This is in additon to the five thousand soldiers and equipment that has already been shipped into eastern europe in a supposedly show of force against Russia for our nato partners in the area. As with the Iraqi war the U.S. must create a villian to help validate their reason for invading a country, the constant rethoric of radical islam is no longer the rallying cry it once was and now is the time to increase the banter if the government is going to be successful in deceiving trhe american public once again.
What will our mission be if we did indeed placed ground troops in syria and what would the exit stratergy be? Remember during our liberation of iraq and afghanistan american forces were only suppose to be there for a short period of time. However, as we have witnessed we never leave any country we enter, especially those we are there to "liberate". Of course the government explanation is to prepare for the assault on Raqqa, who? Exactly remember President Trump sent a small group of special forces operators to Manbij to keep the peace between Kurdish and Turkish backed forces fighting for control of a small portion of northern syria, where does this little battle play into the larger picture? No one knows, just as in the previous wars with Iraq and afghanistan there is sure to be fighting after the so-called liberation of syria.
Another interesting point is that Russia, China, Iran, Japan and North Korea has all issued statements threatening to attack the United States if there are any more attacks from the United States. Which brings us to another interesting situation, Russsia is a known supporter of the Assad regime, which automatically brings in China and North Korea if push comes to shove, but in a very surprising move Japan has stepped in and said if the U.S. attacks North Korea they will stop the U.S. from doing so. Basically what we would be looking at is world war three over what amounts to control of another oil distribution system. According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.
These strategic concerns, motivated by fear of expanding Iranian influence, impacted Syria primarily in relation to pipeline geopolitics. In 2009 - the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria - 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. An Agence France-Presse report claimed Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas".
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 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 just as Syria's civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo - and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.
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.
It would seem that contradictory self-serving Saudi and Qatari oil interests are pulling the strings of an equally self-serving oil-focused US policy in Syria, if not the wider region. It is this - the problem of establishing a pliable opposition which the US and its oil allies feel confident will play ball, pipeline-style, in a post-Assad Syria - that will determine the nature of any prospective intervention: not concern for Syrian life.
My fellow American's the next time you hear your favorite politician say thisd is about the citizens of Syria, you can look at them and say YOU ARE A LIAR!!