The observation that the oil business is a major factor in the Syrian wars is now labeled - by our local Putin apologist - a "conspiracy theory". A "private" one no less. Look: you left it out. Omitted it. Completely. In a list of Putin's motives and issues in Syria, pipelines and Middle East petrochemicals didn't even make your top ten. At the same time, you posted a discovered proposal by a US guy to use oil field control for major State-level extortion of Syria and Putin as legitimate evidence of US issues and motives - so it's not like you never heard of the importance of oil and gas and pipelines in Syria. You do know about them, and how critical they are - you just left them out. What's up with that? Why are you trying to change and limit the issue to Syrian oil, when it was explicitly pipelines etc? These rhetorical manipulations have formed a pattern. Kirkuk's importance to Putin in Syria would be largely the pipeline deals involved, of course. Here's a Western take on Kirkuk: https://www.memri.org/reports/misse...ria-chooses-terrorism-over-long-term-economic But that doesn't make your top ten. Revelatory. You posted that 100% of the US and NATO news feed - you labeled it all "propaganda" - was pro-AQ, until Aleppo. Not "a lot". The whole thing. . Reality itself is irrelevant to how you use that word. It's entirely a propaganda term to you, free-floating, essentially with no meaning at all, and in the US the propaganda is sophisticated - they've got your number. And so you can't identify US fascists, and are clueless about US politics (a resurgence of fascism being the most significant recent trend). But you quarrel with other people's identifications, as if you knew what you were talking about. Everything that is obviously stupid in your propaganda-addled view of the US is the fault of the "deep state". It's like talking to a little kid who blames stuff on the closet monsters. The Iraq War, including the regime change policy associated with it, was centrally and essentially a Republican Party war. It was a one-Party, Partisan, Republican Party initiative. All other involvement was bandwagon side support and/or more or less passive complicity. The issue for the national Democratic politicians was not whether to participate and join, but whether or not to forthrightly oppose this Republican warmongering they had no actual role in. Most did stand up and oppose, despite the Republican propagandist engineered media frenzy - and many lost their jobs, in consequence. When you assert "bipartisan support", you libel them. The PNAC and other American Imperialist theory providers were Republican, the corrupt military contracting was Republican, even the military command directly involved was Republican. It was a one-Party show, all the way. This was completely overt, open, and public at the time. This was celebrated by many of the Republican principals. They bragged about it. The Partisan nature of the Iraq War and all that surrounded it has only become muddled in the wake of an American rightwing disinformation campaign, that was launched in the wake of the disaster, launched when it all fell apart, in an effort to spread the blame for what could not be denied. But as we have seen so many times: that particular American propaganda feed strikes your Achilles heel - and you have actually bought that line, along with the rest of their slop you keep posting here: "bipartisan support", etc. The American dumbass call their bogey of recurrent cognitive dissonance "establishment", you have a slightly more sophisticated "deep state", but minor variations in terminology aside: You swallowed. And that brings us to Putin's motives in the Syrian wars. If you have a list, and pipelines aren't on it, 1) you probably have a worthless list of course - but the real issue is 2) how does inclusion of pipeline issues inform us as we interpret maps and other information?