Follow the money. Senators who backed Syria resolution got 83 per cent more defense lobby money than those who voted against it, campaign finance numbers show

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2412709/Senators-backed-Syria-resolution-got-83-cent-defense-lobby-money.html#ixzz2e8wLDJxv

A war in Syria is about this:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-04/guest-post-us-going-war-syria-over-natural-gas-pipeline



Given our selective approach to intervening in humanitarian crises, and our habit of using created false flag events to justify our military actions, you just knew there was a real reason why attacking Syria was important.

As usual, the truth is best found by following the money. This article suggests that the fight is really over who gets to supply natural gas to Europe. With Assad in power, it's the Russians. With Assad removed, Qatar can build a pipeline and compete with Russia.

This scenario makes a much better explanation for the attitudes and actions of the major players. It also explains why we're so fired up to start a war over a relatively minor casualty count. Not to minimize the personal impact to those involved, but we traditionally ignore much larger humanitarian crises when money's not at stake. From the article:


Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria? Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won't let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria? Of course. Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe.

Why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been "jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Elysee Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime"? Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region.

On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons. One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom. Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict.

If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia. This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all.

bluff!

It's true old man