What exactly is the national interest in Syria?

Silvio Canto, Jr.

We understand that President Obama is going to make "an informed decision" (Sec Kerry's words) and very likely bomb Syria. 

Don't you love how this administration wants you to think that President Obama has been carefully and methodically considering every option?

The administration is acting because Syria violated "the red line" and apparently used chemical weapons on innocent people.

There is also an economic concern and you don't hear that anywhere.  This is the story, according to  CNBC:

"Oil prices spiked above $108 a barrel amid worries that potential military action in the Middle East could disrupt oil production.  

John Kilduff of Again Capital said that Syria's location was vital, even though it is not a major oil exporter. 

"It's clearly become a proxy war for almost the whole region," said Kilduff. "What's happening is you have Egypt and Syria that are not oil producers...

You have a tight market and two significant flash points,and it keeps getting undermined by things like the problems with the Libyan oil, the lack of Iranian oil.""

I'm not surprised that a military action would upset the oil markets. In fact, I'd expect the US to make sure that "oil routes" are open and oil is flowing.

I'm surprised that the left is not talking about it, like they did with Iraq. Don't you remember when the left said that Iraq was all about oil and the Bush family oil interests? 

Where are the marches now that we are bombing Syria without Congressional action and protecting "the oil routes," such as The Suez Canal?

We understand that President Obama is going to make "an informed decision" (Sec Kerry's words) and very likely bomb Syria. 

Don't you love how this administration wants you to think that President Obama has been carefully and methodically considering every option?

The administration is acting because Syria violated "the red line" and apparently used chemical weapons on innocent people.

There is also an economic concern and you don't hear that anywhere.  This is the story, according to  CNBC:

"Oil prices spiked above $108 a barrel amid worries that potential military action in the Middle East could disrupt oil production.  

John Kilduff of Again Capital said that Syria's location was vital, even though it is not a major oil exporter. 

"It's clearly become a proxy war for almost the whole region," said Kilduff. "What's happening is you have Egypt and Syria that are not oil producers...

You have a tight market and two significant flash points,and it keeps getting undermined by things like the problems with the Libyan oil, the lack of Iranian oil.""

I'm not surprised that a military action would upset the oil markets. In fact, I'd expect the US to make sure that "oil routes" are open and oil is flowing.

I'm surprised that the left is not talking about it, like they did with Iraq. Don't you remember when the left said that Iraq was all about oil and the Bush family oil interests? 

Where are the marches now that we are bombing Syria without Congressional action and protecting "the oil routes," such as The Suez Canal?