Memorandum Of Understanding Between Kuwait Petroleum: Fill & Download for Free

The Gulf Arabs (Sunnis), the Iranians (Shias), Assad (Alawite) all became involved a disagreement over competing natural gas transmission lines which, coincident with the Arab Spring, led to a disjointed effort by internal and outside forces to topple the Assad family regime - who control the right-of-ways of the competing pipelines.Everyone in the international oil and gas business knows that the war was precipitated by a dispute between competing oil and gas superpowers - Iran and the Arabian Gulf states - over competing gas transmission lines to Europe. This is the worst kept secret about the war - but is the real reason the Russians are there and why Rex Tillerson is now the Secretary of State.It should be called “The Mideast Gas Pipeline War”Qatar wanted to build a gas pipeline to Europe – through Syria and Turkey, this is the Sunni Line. The Turks also wanted the Qatar pipeline to Europe – through Turkey and Syria. Assad first supported, then blocked that pipeline. So both Turkey and Qatar have supported the imported Sunni Wahabi fighters who are trying to overthrow Assad.Iran wanted their own pipeline to Europe – via Syria and Lebanon. This is the Shia Line. So the Iranians and Lebanese are supporting Assad because he gave Iran the concession to build the line. The proposed Iranian line goes through Lebanon (and then under sea to Europe) bypassing Turkey – who now want to get rid of Assad.That’s how the civil war started, that’s what fueled it, and that’s what perpetuates it - long after Arab Spring turned to winter elsewhere.Russia did not want the proposed Qatar gas pipeline to Europe, where they export most of their gas. So they have supported the Assad military dictatorship, their client and puppet, who blocked delayed the Qatar line, then agreed to the competing Iranian/ Shia pipeline to Europe.That’s when the Syrian Gas Pipeline war began: By signing on to the Iranian pipeline, Assad angered his neighbor, Turkey, and Qatar and the Sunni Arabs. Leaving Iran and Lebanon his only friend in the region.Civil war broke out shortly after the Assad regime signed on for the Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon pipeline route, cutting Qatar and Turkey out. The Syrian rebels were subsequently bankrolled by Qatar and supported logistically by Turkey. The CIA started supplying arms to the Syrian rebels via Turkey and Jordan after Assad cut the pipeline deal with Iran. (Who is making also making nice in the US to get a pipeline through Pakistan to China)Once Assad is gone, Qatar and Turkey would get their pipeline to Europe. Mission accomplished. The same way that US troops died to get Exxon the northern Iraqi oil concession. For Assad to stay, his benefactor, Iran has to get the pipeline concession -by first giving up its nuclear bomb program. The geopolitical significance of these competing and contentious pipelines is old news in the oil and gas industry.We are dependent on Arab oil. The Turks are our allies, the Iranians are our enemies. So the Obama Administration supported Qatar in opposition to Assad and Iranians – over the ‘preferred’ route of a gas pipeline. For which Obama proposed to bomb Syria – in lieu of a diplomatic resolution of the matter – because the US defense department has had Assad teed up for years.Pepe Escobar has been putting the pieces together on Pipelineistan for some time. All this back story is understood as a given in Europe (via the Guardian) in the Mideast (via al Jazeera), and in the oil and gas business, which has been focused on the pipelines as the real objects of contention in the region:http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/201285133440424621.htmlObama knew what was behind the Syrian war. Trump appears clueless.And meanwhile back in the States, who gets the first LNG export concession to ship US shale gas to Europe ? Qatar Petroleum International and Exxon. Qatar, who bankrolls the Syrian rebels. And Exxon, who shares the Iraqi oil concession with the Chinese.Chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction is the now familiar excuse that chicken-hawks in Washington are using as a pretext to embroil US troops in the 3rd Hydrocarbon War of the 21st Century. Meaning send US troops off to die based on a fracking lie. If you know anyone that is about to deploy, might send them a thank you card: “You Will Die For Quatar’s Preferred Pipeline Route.The Good Folks of Quatar Thank You.” If they served in Iraq, can pin it next to their “I Took A Bullet Looking For Weapons of Mass Destruction That Actually Weren’t There So That Exxon and The Chinese Could Frack Iraq.” A real souvenir item.So Syria is not a localized conflict between Muslim sects and ethnic groups ? You bet it is. But what part of the Moslem Mideast is not ? Chemical weapons ? Would a Russian client regime be caught without them ? A proxy war between Israel and Iran ? Of course. But the outside influence and interest of Russia, Quatar, Turkey , Saudi, Iran and the United States is all about the Big Money – those gas pipelines.What should the US do about all this ? Use diplomacy. No troops, no planes, no drones, no naval deployments. No grandiose military operations with catchy names: “Operation Gas Pains.” “Operation Pipe Fitter” ? It would be more productive abroad and more therapeutic domestically to drop a large supply of Congressmen and Senators, onto Syria instead of bombs. That would at least help clear the air on the matter in DC.Who in Washington supports sending you, your son, daughter, friends and relatives to Pipelinestan ? Since this is yet another war over oil & gas, just follow the money. http://dirtyenergymoney.com:“Why has the little nation of Qatar spent a lot of money 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 more 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 Élysée 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 their client the Assad regime for a lot 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 the Saudis, Qatar, Turkey and Israel, and it will be bad for Russia and Iran.This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, and money, and it really has nothing to do with “chemical weapons”.It has been common knowledge that Qatar has wanted to construct a natural gas pipeline that will enable it to get natural gas to Europe. The following is an excerpt from an article from 2009…Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world’s biggest gas field after it finishes an ambitious program to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).“We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey,” Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. “We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time,” he said, according to Turkey’s Anatolia news agency.Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas.“For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all,” Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world’s leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction program aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study.As you just read, there were two proposed routes for the pipeline. Unfortunately for Qatar, Saudi Arabia said no to the first route (which bypasses Syria) and Syria said no to the second route. The following is from an article in the Guardian…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. 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.If Qatar is able to get natural gas flowing into Europe, that will be a significant blow to Russia. So the conflict in Syria is actually much more about a pipeline than it is about the future of the Syrian people or “weapons of mass destruction.” In a recent article, Paul McGuire summarized things quite nicely…The Nabucco Agreement was signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009. It was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria, bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way.Qatar would love to sell its LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said “NO” to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. The only solution for Qatar if it wants to sell its oil is to cut a deal with the U.S.Recently Exxon Mobil and Qatar Petroleum International have made a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobil to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets. Qatar stands to make a lot of money and the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long. What appears to be a conflict with Syria is really a conflict between the U.S. and Russia.The main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. These are the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising, having spent over $3 billion so far on the conflict. The other side of the story is Saudi Arabia, which finances anti-Assad groups in Syria. The Saudis do not want to be marginalized by Qatar; thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.If the U.S. does get involved, we will actually be helping al-Qaeda terrorists that have beheaded mothers and their infants and ran Christians out of Syria.Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant. Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.Is this really who we want to be “allied” with in the First Mideast Gas Pipeline War ?If you think that Trump Administration would never send U.S. troops into Syria, think again. In fact, according to Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, the proposed authorization to use military force that has been sent to Congress would leave the door wide open for American “boots on the ground”…The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad. It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force. It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets. Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used. Four points are worth making about these purposes. First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use of force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict. Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.). Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.” Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”). Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).I think this AUMF has much broader implications than Ilya Somin described. Some questions for Congress to ponder:(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power? Yes, as long as the President determines that any of these entities has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and that the use of force against one of them would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons. It is very easy to imagine the President making such determinations with regard to Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.(2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon? Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.Would you like to send your own son or your own daughter to fight in Syria just so that a natural gas pipeline can be built to compete with the Russians ? Why not send some Congressmen, some Exxon execs, assorted defense industry lobbyists and some Senators – instead ?Russia entered the Syrian Gas Pipeline War on side of Russia.They immediately bombed the US and Saudi proxies that are fighting for the Arabian gas pipeline route, against the Iranian proxies who are fighting for the Iranian gas pipeline route in Pipelinestan.The US has become a tacit supporter of Saudi Arabia’s most effective Sunni proxies, in the was, al Qaeda.The US and its allies (France, the UAE, Saudi, etc.) are entering this gas war on the side of the loyal Sunni partisans that have been bankrolled by the gulf states gas pipeline consortium (see below) against the the rogue Sunni partisans for the same Sunni gas pipeline – that their paymasters in Qatar have lost control over, because the Islamic State has stolen enough oil fields and sells $3Million a day on the black market to be self-supporting. As well as against the Shiite and Alawite proxies that have been fighting for Iran’s gas pipeline through Syria. Clear ?The US has finally been drawn into this conflict, conveniently on the Sunni side of the street – in tactical and air support of Saudi proxies fighting Assad and his Iranian & Russian backers – over a disputed gas pipeline concession.Iraq wasn’t about “weapons of mass destruction.” It was about oil. We borrowed the money from the Chinese so that we could make it safe for the Chinese and Exxon to frack Iraq. Bombing Syria is not about a “chemical weapons of mass destruction.” It’s about the rivalry between competing gas pipeline projects – one that has been proposed to take gas from Qatar to Europe – via Syria and Turkey. The other proposed from Iran, via Iraq, Syria and Lebanon: The Battle of Pipelineistan – fought by US troops – on behalf of Qatar, Israel, Turkey, Europeans – everybody but Americans – to resolve who gets the gas line concession through Syria. It was about that simple. Until one of the rebel groups – bankrolled by the Saudis – morphed into a self-supporting extortion gang.The key “chemical weapon” involved in this conflict is not sarin, it’s natural gas. Plus a lot of political smoke screens

1 IntroductionI have already written three major papers on the Medium site on this topic but due to the complete ignorance of the vast majority of people about this topic I will review and revisit these in response to different recent questions on Quora.This question refers to the economic case for a “Yes” vote for Scottish independence and the implication is that the Barnett Formula and the low oil prices might somehow inhibit Scottish independence.This Answer is a copy of The Economic Case for a “Yes” vote for Scottish Independence first published on the internet on September 13 2014. I have renumbered the paragraph numbers and added to the case where required.2 Purpose This Answer points out the main economic effects of a “Yes” vote and estimates that the financial gains to an independent Scotland are very real and quantifiable while the losses are minimal. Comment is also offered on the effects of an independent Scotland continuing to use the Pound or otherwise, and on other relevant issues.3 The effect of the transfer of 90% of North Sea Oil and gas receipts to Scotland An independent Scotland would become much richer due to the expected transfer of about 90% of North Sea Oil sales and tax revenues. The rUK, on the other hand, would receive a perhaps a few brass plates representing the registered headquarters of some insurance companies and some of the banks which the British Government have recently bailed out. On balance, there can be little doubt about the great benefit to Scotland and the minimal benefits to the rUK in that transfer.3.1 The Revenue Effect The BBC’s Robert Peston has calculated the major economic effect of the Yes vote — the transfer of of 90% of the oil and gas income to Scotland, which will result in the rUK having a balance of payments deficit of about 6.9% of its smaller GDP. (See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29103437). These estimates provide a good indicator to part of the finances of Scotland’s future if independent, and the change in the finances of the rUK.Peston remarks that the current UK deficit in 2013 was about 4.4% of the UK GDP. Given that GDP was about $2.5 tr. (or £1.55 tr.), a 4.4% current account deficit is equal to a British borrowing requirement of about $110 bn (or £68bn) a year.The reduced GDP of the rUK would equate to the current figures minus the estimated $213bn (£132 bn) GDP of an independent Scotland, or an rUK GDP of about $2.37 tr. And Peston’s figure of 6.9% of that amount implies an annual rUK borrowing requirement of about $163bn (£101bn).The estimated value of the oil sales in this scenario are about £33bn a year, which is approximately 25% of an independent Scotland’s GDP (of £132bn).As Robert Peston points out, the independence deal is the southwards transfer of the “Brass Plates” of the heads of the registered offices of Banks and some insurance companies to London in exchange for the northwards transfer to Scotland of 90% of the receipts of of North Sea oil and gas. Given that there might be, say, six brass plates and the total revenue loss to the UK (90% of oil and gas sales plus the oil and gas taxes plus the revenue from 45% of the management and operating cost in the North Sea) is about £33 bn plus £9 bn, or £42 bn a year in total, that’s £7 bn per brass plate. Brass has never been so valuable. The £42 bn annual gains to the Government of Scotland are very real and absolutely enormous, the brass plate gains to England are unquantifiable and of minimal value compared to the near-certain Scottish gain of £42 bn a year. And the idea that an independent Scottish Government which has an extra 32% revenue is somehow not going to be able to pay its pensioners and keep a good quality NHS is laughable — these funds mean the Scottish Government can look after its people much better than ever before.All of these numbers are of course illustrative, but they are of the right order of magnitude. I have not included the recent upwards adjustments in UK GDP to include prostitution and drug dealing because these activities by their nature do not produce much direct tax revenues, although they act as income transfers and may increase expenditure-based sales taxes.3.2 The McCrone Report The current British Coalition Government, of course, know all about the above numbers — it would be very surprising if they did not know. And they have known all about this issue for decades.In 1974, a brief report was written by Professor Gavin McCrone to advise the Conservative Government then led by Edward Heath. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCrone_report.) As Wikipedia comments:‘The eighteen-page report focused on the likely effects of North Sea oil revenue on the economic viability of an independent Scotland. Professor Gavin McCrone wrote the paper as advice to the UK Government. The report predicted that North sea oil revenue would give an independent Scotland a large tax surplus, on such a scale as to be “embarrassing”, making the country “as rich as Switzerland.” He also surmised that this surplus revenue would make the Scottish pound the hardest currency in Europe “with the exception of the Norwegian kronor”.’Another paragraph of the Wikipedia report observes:“A year after Professor McCrone had written his report, civil servants in London (including McCrone himself) met to discuss its implications. They concluded that his findings had been accurate, and that the average income in Scotland would increase by up to 30% per head if the country became an independent state. They also concluded that Scotland’s “economic problems would disappear”, and it would become “the Kuwait of the Western world”, though this was balanced somewhat by the opinion that Scotland could risk “disaster” if the oil price collapsed. The civil servants in London summed up by finding that there was “a good case for the continuation of the Union.”And a much better case for Scottish independence! As the current SNP Government of Scotland have demonstrated, since in 2005/6 they got their hands on the previously classified-as-secret McCrone Report under the Freedom of Information Act. Furthermore, Wikipedia continues:“UK oil production peaked in 1999 and had declined 67% by 2012, but petroleum still contributed £35bn to the UK balance of payments in 2011. The UK government took an estimated £6,530m in direct petroleum taxes in 2012–13[7] plus £6bn in income tax, national insurance and corporation tax from supply companies in 2011–12. As of 2012 around 45% of UK oil & gas employees are in Scotland.”and“In his evidence to the Lords Committee on the Economic Implications of Scottish Independence in 2012, Professor McCrone stated that Scotland’s GDP would increase by around 20% if North Sea oil were counted as part of it.”Alex Salmond’s claims that Scotland would be much better off when independent are fully justified in the light of that report, which concludes:“In an interview for Holyrood Magazine on the 19th of May 2013, ex-Labour chancellor Dennis Healey (who served in the Cabinet at the time the McCrone Report was submitted) stated: “I think we did underplay the value of the oil to the country because of the threat of [Scottish] nationalism… I think they [Westminster politicians] are concerned about Scotland taking the oil, I think they are worried stiff about it.” [9]The Westminster Government, having miscalculated the likely outcome of the independence referendum, are now utterly terrified about the possible loss of about £33 bn (a bit less than the £35bn in 2011) on the future UK balance of payments and losing about 75% of the tax revenues arising from North Sea operations, equal to another c£9 bn a year. It’s not so much that a new love for Scotland has belatedly appeared in the breasts of the Cameron, Clegg and Osborne, it is more that their one indisputable and certain love — the love of money — is probably motivating their every action. The No case could be summed up as“Dear Voters of Scotland, please continue giving us £42 bn a year. We need it, we have got used to having it, and we have wasted it so far, but that’s no reason not to let us keep doing that. We know these oil revenues are yours, and acknowledge that we have tried to mislead you immensely to act against your own better interests by trying to imply that somehow the costs and uncertainties of independence are very great, because the economic case for Scottish independence is actually unanswerable. Our case is ridiculous because none of the disadvantages of independence could possibly total £42bn a year, and we have wasted hundreds of billions of pounds of North Sea gas and oil proceeds since these resources were discovered. But think of our position. How can the rUK possibly raise the £42bn a year Scottish Independence will cost us? Please be reasonable and help us by voting No! If you don’t our neoclassical economics game is up! ”3.3 Implications of the higher rUK borrowing requirement.An rUK borrowing requirement of 6.9% of GDP would probably not be seen by the markets as sustainable in the long run. Therefore the rUK would have to develop an industrial policy and to produce a lot more high-quality exportable goods because otherwise it would not only become, but it would also remain, as an economic basket case. Therefore a Yes vote would not only be to the advantage of the Scots, it would greatly advantage the English, Welsh and Northern Irish workers , because the future governments of the rUK of whatever hue would have to make a much better use of its very capable and highly trained workforce, by framing policies to increase economic growth and the productivity and employment in manufacturing. The rUK would not be able to continue the decades-long policy of successive UK Governments, of having a financial policy without an industrial policy, and of preferring the London-based financial sector over the nationwide industrial sector. Other nations — particularly Germany and the Tokyo Consensus high-growth group — have a financial system which supports industrial growth and development. (See https://medium.com/p/a-comparison-of-the-washington-berlin-and-tokyo-consensus-zones-221e7e53018b) The rUK would need to develop one.The “panic in the breastie” or desperation of the Westminster politicians is therefore because the UK cannot afford to lose the resources of Scotland and the Scots as part of the union. Far from the insulting initial No campaign refrain of Scotland being “wee, stupid and incapable of governing themselves”, Scottish resources per head are vast, the Scots are highly educated (as per ONS assessment “maybe the best-educated on the planet”) and the Scottish Government team are highly competent and credible.And the Scots will live in a much richer, high-growth economy if they vote Yes.3.4 The BBC and the media frighteners campaign Given the combination of two key facts — the fact that Scottish independence involves an inter-state transfer of about £33bn plus about £9bn a year, giving an enormous funds transfer to Scotland, and that the Scots through an industrial policy intend to turn that gain into an enormous advantage to Scottish industry — a Yes vote would require the end of Thatcherism south of the border. It would see the back of the existing Coalition government and its hopeless neo-classical economics and all that implies.Given the continual campaign of yammering lies told by the BBC on behalf of the No campaign, the BBC and BBC Scotland has acted and is acting as the major campaigner against the YES vote. Salmond and his team have been given one long programme but the headline is the story and the BBC have not acted with any impartiality — every downside of Scottish Independence is being given a daily major airing while the great commercial and economic advantages of independence are hardly mentioned at all. The 130 major industrialists not supporting Scottish Independence are featured prominently on the BBC TV headline, but the 200 in favour of independence are not. The relocation into London of several brass plates of financial institutions is interesting but has almost no economic effect at all, except to give these these institutions the comfort of the Bank of England as a lender of last resort, but that issue has been regularly featured as a daily item on the BBC TV news as if it was much more significant than it is, with an entirely mistaken “loss of jobs” implication either stated or implied. The McCrone Report has not had a mention on the BBC, although it is a major factor driving the actions on both sides of the campaign. The BBC have not highlighted the deadly analysis of their own economic correspondent Robert Peston which indicates the increased economic difficulty of the rUK after Scottish independence, which is hidden away on one page of the BBC website.It is perhaps inevitable, given the disastrous economic position of the Westminster Government if the Yes vote wins, that the BBC (with would not welcome renaming itself as the Rest of UK Broadcasting Corporation, or the rUKBC) would become the major mouthpiece of the Westminster campaign against Scottish Independence. The BBC is no longer the British Broadcasting Corporation, it has become the Westminster Broadcasting Service, highlighting and repeating all the misleading misinformation of the No campaign. It is already the rUK BBC in all but name.Of course, one defence of the BBC’s partiality is that it is acting in the interests of most, or the rest of the people in the UK and is only repeating the Westminster frighteners in order to keep all the the North Sea Oil assets within the income of the Government of the United Kingdom. But the effect is not as intended — the effect of the BBC’s activity might be to produce an increased No vote, which, if successful, would prolong the life of the Coalition Government which does not act in the interests of the people of the United Kingdom.The effects of Independence on rUKIf the Scots get independence it is not Scotland that is economically destabilised, it’s the rUK which becomes a bit more of a basket case. In retrospect, Cameron should have agreed to having Devo Max being put on the ballot paper and the price of his misjudgement is almost as high as that of Margaret Thatcher.But as the Guardian research has shown from the showing from the political donation registry, the Tories are 83% funded by 15 super-wealthy individuals, of whom 14 are London-based financial operators.The future of the Conservative PartyThe Conservative party was once popular, unionist and conservative. It has turned into a very unpopular party, ruling by division and belonging to the radical right, the purveyors of the mistaken neo-classical economics which only acts in the interests of the rich and privileged. When there are only 15 major financiers providing 83% of the funding of the Conservative Party, who can possibly believe that the UK is still a democracy? These piper-payers are dominating the policies of the Conservative-dominated Coalition Government, which are not framed to increase the prosperity of the majority of the people of the UK, but are acting in favour of the monied interests which fund the Conservative Party. A national “Party of the Rich” is only acceptable if it does not act viciously against the interests of the majority of the people, but the current poverty-increasing NHS-privatising Coalition does and is doing exactly that. So much national income has now been transferred out of wages and into profits since 1980 that the only way more of the same can be delivered is by impoverishing more and more of the working people. In my opinion the limit of doing that has not only been reached, but has now been exceeded. The Coalition Government have produced some economic growth which is of no benefit to the great majority of the British people, with more poverty and starving children, with a million people depending on food banks. That is one of the major drivers behind the rise of minor parties in general and the decline of the Conservative vote in particular.The Scottish Currency IssueThe highly paid Mark Carney, Head of the BoE, has said time and again again the Scots can’t continue to use the pound if the Yes vote wins. He will say the opposite shortly after the Scots vote for independence, because the pound will go into a very steep large nosedive if he doesn’t. The money markets can do their sums and they know that a 7% borrowing requirement for the rUK is not easily sustainable and the riskiness of UK lending will increase. The value of the pound will be much more stable if the oil earnings are part of sterling area sales, as Mr Alex Salmond intends. It will be difficult enough for the rUK to borrow to fund its balance of payments without having to defend the value of the pound as well.And What Can One Say about Paul Krugman’s Advice, that the Scots Should “Be Afraid, be Very Afraid”? Perhaps just this:“Be foolish, Mr Krugman, be very foolish. Please keep living up to your reputation as probably the most foolishly opinionated Nobel Prize Winner, as a man who argues in the abstract and never does his homework and who therefore often has no knowledge of what he is talking about. After all, your Nobel Prize win gives the right to be listened to, when there is often no substance, no research, and no merit whatsoever in what you are saying.“Was your opinion solicited by the current British Coalition Government, Mr Krugman, or did you manage to be that foolish all on your own? Even your analogies are bizarre. Global warning is making Scotland and the United Kingdom nothing like Spain without the sunshine. The weather over here is now bizarre, with long blazing heat waves, often warmer than Spain, and Scotland has in some years had blizzards which make the place look like Switzerland. Except many years you can’t get to the ski slopes in the Cairngorms (the Scottish central highlands) because the A9 is blocked by great drifts of snow. And the wind speeds here are now phenomenal, with more frequent building-damaging gusts of of over 80 miles per hour, and tornados have appeared in the centre of the UK, mild at the minute by tornado valley standards, but not previously seen here. It’s like Spain with the sunshine, and the sun even shines on Leith, and sometimes like a snow scene out of Switzerland, as well as having monsoon-like weeks-long downpours and massive floods burying farmers’ fields for weeks — sometimes for months.“How could a country like an independent Scotland with a GDP of c£130 bn, plus additional oil taxes of £9 bn a year, plus increasing reserves based on oil revenues of £33 bn a year, possibly become unstable? It would have to take the advice of many of your neo-classical colleagues before it could. The aim of Scotland’s government is to make Scotland into a western European economic miracle, into the most prosperous region in the sterling zone, and from my examination of the effects of the oil wealth plus their proposed industrial policy (see http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/06/5184) they know exactly how to do that. The government of rUK cannot prevent that outcome if there is a Yes vote because if the Scots were not allowed to use the pound after a vote for independence, it is not Scotland that would suffer: the value of pound would fall substantially and while the resulting devaluation might help British Industry to export more, it would do nothing to enable Mr Carney to sleep more easily at night.“Of course an independent Scotland, if it had an independent central bank, could bale out its own banks. It would be able to create its own credit for that purpose, in the same way the Bank of England did. And it would have very large reserves, increasing at about 25% of GDP a year, because the First Minister of Scotland is not proposing to waste these funds as the British Government has done for decades. The policy of an independent Scotland would be to build up a large national reserve fund as Norway has. The strength of any new Scottish currency would be enormous, similar to the Norwegian Kronor, as Professor McCrone has remarked in his Report. You seem to be writing without understanding any of that. As a good American liberal, your heart is in the right place but I have no idea where your head is. Perhaps you should do a little more research and not give advice without knowing a lot more about the subjects you pontificate upon.”In any contest between the advice of Krugman and the ponderings of the BBC’s Robert Peston, or the observations of the Professor Gavin McCrone’s Report, which ones would you give due weight to? My credibility scorecard would read: Peston 90%, McCrone 90%, Krugman zero percent.The Bad Faith of the No CampaignThe Coalition government has abandoned all constraint in trying to persuade the Scots to vote against independence. Although the Edinburgh Agreement states that“The governments are agreed that the referendum should meet the highest standards of fairness, transparency and propriety, informed by consultation and independent expert advice.”several problems have emerged during the last three weeks of the referendum.First, the referendum has not been conducted in a fair or honest way. The McCrone Report has not been promoted or widely discussed during the run-up to the referendum. The Coalition Government and its representatives have used much of the power of Government to try to disadvantage their opponents. The Devo unit of the Foreign Office has written to all foreign governments asking them to express support for the No vote (see http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/revealed-the-foreign-office-devo-units-drive-to-kill-off-independence.23269484). Most governments have quite properly refrained from endorsing the “No” campaign position. Weak expressions of qualified support such as Obama’s “There is a referendum process in place and it is up to the people of Scotland. The United Kingdom has been an extraordinary partner to us. From the outside at least, it looks like things have worked pretty well. And we obviously have a deep interest in making sure that one of the closest allies we will ever have remains a strong, robust, united and effective partner. But ultimately these are decisions that are to be made by the folks there” have perhaps been typical 0f the guarded response received. The BBC and the British newspapers have often treated these qualified replies as an endorsement of the No vote when it is not.Second, the BBC has not been impartial, as required by sections 21 to 23 of the memorandum of agreement. The BBC has usually exhibited extreme bias in favour of the No camp, and every disadvantage, however minor, of the Yes case has been given great publicity, with the great revenue and tax advantages of the transfer of 90% of the the sales proceeds of North Sea Oil to the Scottish Government hardly mentioned at all. There is no point listening to the BBC on this issue any longer, because their output is almost entirely biased, without any balanced comments or valuable information.Third, the Coalition Government has acted illegally a mere 10 days before the date of the referendum. All the main three leaders of the Coalition Government have quite wrongly argued that if the Scots will please vote No, then something close to the the Devolution Max Option (or Devo-Max) would be implemented. The political leaders have little inclination, no mandate whatsoever, and in the case of Labour politicians no power, to promise that. The leader of the Commons in the absence of the Prime Minister, William Hague, has said at PM’s Question Time that “the British Government has no plans to introduce Devo Max if the No vote prevails.” (See http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/hague-giving-scotland-more-powers-if-it-votes-no-is-not-government-policy.1410350878) The reason why Devo Max is not on the ballot paper is because Cameron red-lined that option — he would not allow it on the paper under any circumstances. And putting forward new proposals within 28 days of the referendum by either party is illegal under the Edinburgh Agreement. The postal voters have now voted and the reason why no new proposals should be put forward 28 days before the referendum date is that these early voters should be voting with the same information as the voters on referendum day, and any new information means they can’t. It is particularly misleading to argue, as all the panicking Westminster politicians visiting Scotland have done, that a No vote is somehow a vote for Devo Max. It isn’t and if the No vote succeeds it won’t be. Wiliam Hague has been very forthcoming on this issue, thoroughly demolishing the claims of the visiting David Cameron and the other part leaders by saying“The statements by the party leaders made on this in the last few days are statements by party leaders in a campaign, not a statement of Government policy today but a statement of commitment from the three main political parties, akin to statements by party leaders in a general election campaign of what they intend to do afterwards.“It’s on that basis they have made those statements.”Promises made during UK election campaigns are notorious for being broken. In 1979, Thatcher promised the SNP MPs that if they voted down Callaghan’s Labour Government and she came into office in the subsequent general election, she would implement the Kilbrandon Report for Scottish devolution. She did win the 1979 elect but did not implement any measure of the Kilbrandon recommendations. Thatcher also promised during the 1979 election that she would use the revenues from North Sea Oil to recover the productivity of the UK economy. Instead the revenues were used to strengthen the value of the the pound and to give very large reductions in income tax to the rich. A lot of British manufacturing industry collapsed in consequence of the higher pound but no doubt many millionaires enjoyed the extra income.In the joint publication “The Coalition: our programme for government” Cameron and Clegg promised that, “We will reform the banking system to avoid a repeat of the financial crisis, to promote a competitive economy, to protect and sustain jobs.” Nothing of that promise has been delivered. In fact quite the opposite has come about — the banking system has not been reformed and is still at risk, nothing has been done done to promote a more competitive economy, and jobs have been threatened, with the spread of zero-hour contracts which the government count as employment but which provide no guaranteed work or stable weekly income at all.William Hague is clearly signalling to the Conservative MPs that the Coalition Government have no intention whatsoever to give Scotland any additional powers after a No vote — it’s back to the normal business of ignoring Scotland as usual. A No vote means no change. The temporary agreement among the party leaders old and new is only a ploy to get a No vote leading to no change. Only a Yes vote can prevent that outcome.Conclusions(All of the above was written in September 2014 and the following conclusions remain valid.)1 The economic case for Scottish independence is very strong, and a Yes vote for independence could make Scotland into one of the strongest economies in Western Europe with high living standards and high reserves from its beginning.2 The No campaign is entirely based on fear and misinformation, and the BBC is the handmaiden of that campaign. The partial behaviour of the BBC was not what was ever meant to happen in a referendum campaign, because it is very unfair.3 The fear and panic of British politicians is soundly based on what happens to the rUK if Scotland leaves the union, but their actions are motivated by money, by the potential loss of oil revenues and probably not by any new-found love of Scotland or the Scots.4 The Referendum Campaign has changed into a race between education — about the real economics of the case for Scottish independence — and the No campaign fear-mongering based on misinformation. Hope should win over fear.5 The No vote is a vote for no change, a vote for the continuation of Westminster policies in Scotland.6 Scotland has led the world before and the referendum creates the opportunity for it to do so again. I hope education wins and the Scots vote YES for the sake of all the Scots and the people in the rUK and the wider world.Updated AnswerThe Barnett Formula is an economic pretence that Scotland is an advantaged English region. It isn’t.© George Tait Edwards 2014Note: George Tait Edwards has published a book about “Shimomuran Economics” at http://www.lulu.com/shop/george-tait-edwards/shimomuran-economics/paperback/product-21688864.htmlThe Economic Case for a “Yes” vote for Scottish IndependenceAn Acceptable Economic Solution to the Scottish Independence Issue?The most relevant question about this issue is: How would the Rest of the UK manage without the enormous contribution of Scotland to the UK economy?They would find that very difficult.

Same thing that started Gulf War 1.0 and Gulf War 2.0. Fight over oil and gas.The Iraq War wasn’t about “weapons of mass destruction.” It was about oil. We borrowed the money from the Chinese so that we could make it safe for the Chinese and Exxon to frack Iraq.The Syrian War started over a rivalry between competing gas pipeline projects – one that has been proposed to take gas from Quatar to Europe – via Syria and Turkey. The other proposed from Iran, via Iraq, Syria and Lebanon: The Battle of Pipelineistan – fought by US troops – on behalf of Quatar, Israel, Turkey, Europeans – everybody but Americans – to resolve who gets the gas line concession through Syria. It was about that simple. Until one of the rebel groups – bankrolled by the Saudis – morphed into a self-supporting extortion gang.The key “chemical weapon” involved in this conflict is natural gas.Quatar wants a gas pipeline to Europe – through Syria. The Turks want the Quatar pipeline to Europe – through Turkey and Syria. Assad has blocked this pipeline. So now the Turks and Quatar both support the imported al Qaeda fighters who are trying to overthrow Assad.Iranian Gas Lines in Yellow. Arab Line in GreenIran does not want the Quatar pipeline to Europe. They want their own pipeline to Europe – via Syria. So the Iranians are supporting Assad. But this proposed line goes through Lebanon (and then under sea to Europe) bypassing Turkey – who now want to get rid of Assad.Russia does not want the proposed Quatar gas pipeline to Europe, where they export most of their gas. So they have supported the Assad military dictatorship, their client and puppet, who has blocked it on their behalf – until Assad agreed to the Iranian pipeline to Europe, which the Russians may build and own.That’s when Assad’s real troubles began: By signing on to the Iranian pipeline, Assad angered his benefactors the Russians, his neighbor, Turkey, and Quatar. Leaving Iran his only friend in the region. The USA (and the Israelis) do not want the Iranian pipeline project to go through. But the Americans looked the other way on the pipeline when Iran dropped its nuclear bomb program.That’s what Pipelinestan was all about.Civil war broke out shortly after the Assad regime signed on for the Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon route, cutting Quatar and Turkey out and elevating Iran. The Syrian rebels were subsequently bankrolled by Quatar and supported logistically by Turkey. The CIA started supplying arms to the Syrian rebels via Turkey and Jordan after Assad cut the pipeline deal with Iran. (Who is making also making nice in the US to get a pipeline through Pakistan to China)Once Assad is gone, Quatar and Turkey would get their pipeline to Europe. Mission accomplished. The same way that US troops died to get Exxon the northern Iraqi oil concession. For Assad to stay, his benefactor, Iran has to get the pipeline concession -by giving up its nuclear bomb program. The geopolitical significance of these competing and contentious pipelines is old news in the oil and gas industry. It is understood that’s what drives matters.We are dependent on Arab oil. The Turks are our allies, the Iranians are our enemies. So the Obama Administration supported Quatar in opposition to Assad and Iranians – over the ‘preferred’ route of a gas pipeline. For which the US proposed to bomb Syria – in lieu of a diplomatic resolution of the matter – because the US defense department has had Assad teed up for years. But thickens the plot if Iran gives up the nuclear card to get its pipeline.Pepe Escobar has been putting the pieces together on Pipelineistan for some time. All this back story is understood as a given in Europe (via the Guardian) in the Mideast (via al Jazeera), and in the oil and gas business, which has been focused on the pipelines as the real objects of contention in the region. Here’s a summary.And meanwhile back in the States, who gets the first LNG export concession to ship US shale gas to Europe ? Quatar Petroleum International and Exxon. Quatar, who bankrolls the Syrian rebels. And Exxon, who shares the Iraqi oil concession with the Chinese.Chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction is the now familiar excuse that chicken-hawks in Washington are using as a pretext to embroil US troops in the 3rd Hydrocarbon War of the 21st Century. Meaning send US troops off to die based on another fracking lie.So Syria is not a localized conflict between Muslim sects and ethnic groups ? You bet it is. But what part of the Moslem Mideast is not ? Chemical weapons ? Would a Russian client regime be caught without them ? A proxy war between Israel and Iran ? Of course. But the outside influence and interest of Russia, Quatar, Turkey , Saudi, Iran and the United States is all about the Big Money – those gas pipelines.Who in Washington supports sending you, your son, daughter, friends and relatives to Pipelinestan ? Since this was yet another war over oil & gas, just follow the money.“Why has the little nation of Qatar spent a lot of money 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 more natural gas to Europe.Why did Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the Sunni rebels and why did Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been “jet from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée 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.This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, and money, and it really has nothing to do with “chemical weapons”.It has been common knowledge that Qatar has wanted to construct a natural gas pipeline that will enable it to get natural gas to Europe. The following is an excerpt from an article from 2009…Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world’s biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).“We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey,” Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. “We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time,” he said, according to Turkey’s Anatolia news agency.Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas.“For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all,” Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world’s leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study.As you just read, there were two proposed routes for the pipeline. Unfortunately for Qatar, Saudi Arabia said no to the first route (which bypasses Syria) and Syria said no to the second route. The following is from an article in the Guardian…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. 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.If Qatar is able to get natural gas flowing into Europe, that will be a significant blow to Russia. So the conflict in Syria is actually much more about a pipeline than it is about the future of the Syrian people or “weapons of mass destruction.” In a recent article, Paul McGuire summarized things quite nicely…The Nabucco Agreement was signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009. It was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria, bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way.Qatar would love to sell its LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said “NO” to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. The only solution for Qatar if it wants to sell its oil is to cut a deal with the U.S.Recently Exxon Mobil and Qatar Petroleum International have made a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobil to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets. Qatar stands to make a lot of money and the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long. What appears to be a conflict with Syria is really a conflict between the U.S. and Russia.The main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. These are the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising, having spent over $3 billion so far on the conflict. The other side of the story is Saudi Arabia, which finances anti-Assad groups in Syria. The Saudis do not want to be marginalized by Qatar; thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.If the U.S. does get involved, we will actually be helping al-Qaeda terrorists that have beheaded mothers and their infants…Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant. Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.Is this really who we want to be “allied” with in the First Mideast Gas Pipeline War ?If you think that the US would never send U.S. troops into Syria, think again. In fact, according to Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, the proposed authorization to use military force that had been sent to Congress would leave the door wide open for American “boots on the ground”…The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad. It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force. It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets. Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used. Four points are worth making about these purposes. First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use of force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict. Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.). Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.” Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”). Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).I think this AUMF has much broader implications than Ilya Somin described. Some questions for Congress to ponder:(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power? Yes, as long as the President determines that any of these entities has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and that the use of force against one of them would preventor deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons. It is very easy to imagine the President making such determinations with regard to Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.(2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon? Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.Would you like to send your own son or your own daughter to fight in Syria just so that a natural gas pipeline can be built ?