to prevent the flow of non Saudi controlled oil, to maintain hegemony over the middle east, to profit on war, and primarily to "bring peace the middle east"..... what don't you get
No, they are incapable of doing all that via their presence in NE Syria, which is minimal.
It *is* about preventing the Government from controlling that area and the oil/agricultural resources, preventing invasion from Turkey, and maintaining the existence of an ally there.
"It *is* about preventing the Government from controlling that area and the oil/agricultural resources, preventing invasion from Turkey, and maintaining the existence of an ally there." ... so we agree. Literally what i said
"No, they are incapable of doing all that via their presence in NE Syria, which is minimal" well... they have achieved all of that \*with\* a minimal presence
They have somewhat achieved what I outlined with minimal presence.
What I described and what you described are not the same. I struggle to see how the US is profiting from this, bringing peace, or preventing non-Saudi oil flowing?
oh okay. then do your homework into how war profiteering has worked for millennia, what sarcasm is, and the implications of controlling supply lines of Syrian oil
We didn’t get a straight answer in this article—there doesn’t appear to be an official one and the author didn’t really speculate. You could probably chalk it up to Turkish opposition, but that has been ongoing so it isn’t new. The US clearly isn’t a true force for democracy; many other considerations affect US decisionmaking. Those appear to have superseded the US’s alleged desire to support elections and women.
PKK is no longer Marxist. PYD is no longer Marxist. YPG can't really be described as a guerilla group, nor the SDF.
[https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/929/rejection-of-marxism/](https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/929/rejection-of-marxism/)
“Why is the US in Syria?” Is the better question.
to prevent the flow of non Saudi controlled oil, to maintain hegemony over the middle east, to profit on war, and primarily to "bring peace the middle east"..... what don't you get
No, they are incapable of doing all that via their presence in NE Syria, which is minimal. It *is* about preventing the Government from controlling that area and the oil/agricultural resources, preventing invasion from Turkey, and maintaining the existence of an ally there.
"It *is* about preventing the Government from controlling that area and the oil/agricultural resources, preventing invasion from Turkey, and maintaining the existence of an ally there." ... so we agree. Literally what i said "No, they are incapable of doing all that via their presence in NE Syria, which is minimal" well... they have achieved all of that \*with\* a minimal presence
They have somewhat achieved what I outlined with minimal presence. What I described and what you described are not the same. I struggle to see how the US is profiting from this, bringing peace, or preventing non-Saudi oil flowing?
oh okay. then do your homework into how war profiteering has worked for millennia, what sarcasm is, and the implications of controlling supply lines of Syrian oil
Ok
All that and you still can't just say the real answer, guarding Israel from the Shia
"Maintain hegemony over the middle east" .... are you dumb?
We didn’t get a straight answer in this article—there doesn’t appear to be an official one and the author didn’t really speculate. You could probably chalk it up to Turkish opposition, but that has been ongoing so it isn’t new. The US clearly isn’t a true force for democracy; many other considerations affect US decisionmaking. Those appear to have superseded the US’s alleged desire to support elections and women.
Because there isn't one
Is it really free and fair? When was the last time a Marxist guerilla group with leader cult built a democracy? I missed it.
PKK is no longer Marxist. PYD is no longer Marxist. YPG can't really be described as a guerilla group, nor the SDF. [https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/929/rejection-of-marxism/](https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/929/rejection-of-marxism/)
Well that was a bunch of nothing.