Those who aren't capable of better than cowboys-and-indians level thinking about it should probably refrain from discussing foreign policy in any venue. It can't possibly go well.
let's break down what you said.
CardinalFang said:
The Syrian government will have access to diesel under any circumstances
This is incorrect for two reasons:
1. There are many, obvious sets of black swan circumstances in which the Syrian government will not have access to diesel. There are several other more likely sets of circumstances in which the Syrian government loses its' access to diesel. As the Syrian governments' area of control constricts, it is less and less capable of attaining resources either domestically or internationally.
2. The statement seems to imply that the Syrian government will, even in circumstances where it has access to diesel, have access to all the diesel it needs. This is exceedingly unlikely. The Syrian military has been actively deployed now for a year and a half, and the logistical system supporting them was not particularly world-class to begin with. Combined with the disruption of local production, the absence of foreign major suppliers (such as Chavez) would make it very likely that the Syrian regime would quickly find it's maneuver ability severely degraded, thus negating a key center of gravity for Syrian forces. BMP's without gas are useless outside of the max effective range of their mounted-guns.
If there is a drop of it even near the country, they will have it
This is not true for three reasons:
1. The Syrian government does not control the entirety of Syria, but is rather currently engaged in a civil war.
2. The Syrian government would have to mount an invasion of any territories "near" the country, which it is exceedingly unlikely to do, given the immediate and overwhelming response this would provoke. China and Russia will not be able to save Assad from a US response should it invade NATO-ally Turkey.
3. In times of turmoil civilian providers of goods inevitably hoard, and are to greater or lesser extents inevitably successful at it.
The EU/US boycotts have not stalled Assad
No, and they were always unlikely to. They
have degraded Assads' capabilities, which they
were likely to do.
However, the effect is mitigated because those who see the benefit in enabling Assads' regime (such as Russia, Iran, and yes, Hugo Chavez) to continue have helped to prop him up.
They have instead stalled ordinary Syrians by crippling transportation and agriculture, severely damaging the well-being of those we say we are trying to protect.
EXCEPT THAT YOU JUST SAID THAT IF THERE WAS A DROP OF DIESEL IN THE COUNTRY, ASSADS' FORCES WOULD SEIZE IT. :lamo
:lol:you don't even know
what you are saying.
