# Why not admit we are in Libya for oil reasons? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 30, 2011, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468 "2011-03-30T04:27:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Nadir](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nadir/32/7302_2.png) [@Nadir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nadir)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/161 "2011-04-22T13:51:08Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > What the hey. Can you explain this comment? Need more explanation that that? Based simply on the fact that the U.S. military is controlled by the civilian government, it would be hard to argue they excise much if any control over themselves at the highest levels. There’s much more subtle nuance at all levels within the military itself, but I’m not going down into the weeds with it any further than that just for the sake of pointless argument with people who are fundamentally opposed to military doctrine and philosophy with seemingly little comprehension of the the U.S. military’s basic nature, roles, policy, functions, relationships, etc. Not bangin’ my head against that wall, thank you very much. 😃 Now let’s go bomb or invade something! Hooah! ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/162 "2011-04-22T20:32:28Z")
**Nadir** : I am also retired from active duty. I’m fully aware that the US military is subordinate to the civilian government. I am also aware that the US military is not a group of mindless zombies as a number of people seem to think it is. I can see why you’d not want to engage those folks with facts about our military. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/163 "2011-04-26T02:07:26Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > The U.S. is a signatory on a U.N. resolution stating that they will intervene to stop genocide. It was '48, I think…I don’t feel like Googling right now. Clinton came under a lot of Monday-morning QB fire for Rwanda for not acting soon enough. > > Libya isn’t a case of genocide, though. Technically the Bush doctrine says that it’s our job to spreed freedom and democracy, yeehaw. Allright, so we aren’t compelled by doctrine to intervene militarily to prevent a massacre/military victory. Nor is there much precedent for going to war to prevent ‘massacres’ (unless it is the massacred party declaring war of course, eg [The Boston Massacre](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre)). Is Kosovo the ultimate example of a war fought for the right reasons? Maybe, I dunno, but it really doesn’t contribute much by itself to the Libya discussion. The circumstances are completely different. We are compelled by doctrine to intervene militarily to ‘protect the free flow of oil’. There are plenty of precedents for this _causus belli_. And its variants- there have been wars aplenty for land, for other resources- there’s been a war over bat shit for Christ’s sake. Democracy? Part of the motive here perhaps. I think the facts point to sheer NATO loyalty as part of the motive. But besides that is also the oil motive- NATO has better things to do when global oil markets aren’t subject to shocks, no? But why don’t officials admit this? ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/164 "2011-04-26T02:14:29Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > No. You made the assertion that the US military controls the oil. Prove the assertion. Don’t just keep repeating it as though it’s a magical mantra that will become true after a certain number of repetitions. I’ve been unavailable lately, sorry. I am not sure what you are missing here. There’s a country that has its armies parked all over the middle-east oil region. Same is now involved in a military intervention in another, somewhat-nearby oil-exporting country. Same has a military doctrine to protect the free flow of oil, a doctrine it has explicitly exercised in the past, and which certainly appears to be an unstated motive for the current intervention (to me anyway, after all this discussion, yes). Which country is this? The US of course, who else? Its too bad you are stuck on parsing the meaning of the word ‘control’ oil (we try to protect its flow with our military presence, and we presumably could turn this flow off using our military,er, industrial complex) because the question I’d like to see an answer to is ‘Why not admit we are in Libya for oil reasons?’ Yes, I realize my assertion does not rise to the level of proof. I have already admitted that. But this isn’t the ‘Great Proofs’ message board. Proof isn’t the standard here, debate is. It is rumored you are acquainted with the ways of faith, so maybe it will require humoring me to answer the question. Fine. I laid out what I think is the outline of the debate up thread. There are numerous convincing (to me anyway) arguments suggesting that oil must be at least part of the motive in this intervention. The only argument I see that this is a wholly humanitarian mission is some noises produced by a handful of politicians. If you don’t mind my saying so, I am entirely unconvinced that the arguments paint a picture of a humanitarian mission, but rather a more complex, but certainly at least in part an oil-motivated one. What’s your proof that this is an entirely humanitarian mission, with no mind whatsoever to the oil? Please explain why I should believe That. Not that we don’t care about the Libyans at all. We do of course. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/165 "2011-04-26T02:54:27Z")
Oh, well, if you’re going to make up definitions for the words you’re using, then there’s no reason for me to pretend that you now have, or ever did have for that matter, an iota of proof for your CT of “the US military controls the oil.” By the way, you’re _ad hominem_ in post #164 would’ve been entertaining had it any substance to it. Oh, sorry. That’s just like your assertion: no substance. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/166 "2011-04-26T05:43:23Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > a military doctrine to protect the free flow of oil, a doctrine it has explicitly exercised in the past, and which certainly appears to be an unstated motive for the current intervention Except\* this makes no sense.\* The rebels were near defeat when we agreed to intervene to prevent civilian massacres. If we’d done nothing, oil production would have stabilized within a short time period. Hell, if we’d come in to support Quadaffi, we’d have earned his gratitude _and_ had the flow of oil secured. It makes absolutely no sense that we backed the dark horse in order to wrest oil production away from Quadaffi and secure production of a fungible commodity on the global market… when it was already being produced and distributed on the global market. Your use of the word “control” just makes the claim easier to dismiss, since even claiming that we’re in Libya “for oil reasons” doesn’t pass the smell test. We’re in Libya because it’s the right thing to do, because its leader has been an enemy of our nation, on and off, for quite some time now, because the Arab League supported and endorsed this mission, in order to earn good will on the Arab Street, etc… > [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Yes, I realize my assertion does not rise to the level of proof. I have already admitted that. But this isn’t the ‘Great Proofs’ message board. Proof isn’t the standard here, debate is. No. Proof is most certainly the standard here. Throwing ideas at a wall and seeing what sticks is not how debate is conducted. Moreover, if you can’t provide support for your position, and if it’s gainsaid by both the facts and logic, it’s almost definitely the case that you’re wrong. Whether or not you can _argue_ about a point is immaterial to whether or not you can cogently debate it. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/167 "2011-04-26T05:45:34Z")
As long as no one is claiming we’re in Libya for moral reasons, I won’t get my panties in a bunch. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/168 "2011-04-26T06:26:57Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > By the way, you’re _ad hominem_ in post #164 would’ve been entertaining had it any substance to it. Oh, sorry. That’s just like your assertion: no substance. should be: > [@Monty](#): > > By the way, your _ad hominem_ in post #164 would’ve been entertaining had it any substance to it. Oh, sorry. That’s just like your assertion: no substance. Sorry about the misspelling. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/169 "2011-04-29T14:29:26Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > _Do you have any credible evidence that the US military controls the oil?_ Yes. Our military is parked all over the region, and our history in the region effectively hinges on oil. Do you have any proof that Republicans have suddenly become excited about billion-dollar humanitarian efforts? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/170 "2011-04-29T14:31:46Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Yes. Our military is parked all over the region, and our history in the region effectively hinges on oil. Which still does nothing to prove that we control oil. IIRC, the US has troops in most of Europe, for example. We don’t control Europe. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2011, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/171 "2011-04-30T02:28:20Z")
I’m not out to _ad hominem_ the posters here, **Monty**. I really doubt I will walk away from this a Monty-hater, FWIW. I did get a little snippy I guess, but that is because 1. I don’t feel like you’ve responded to anything I’ve said at all, except for latching onto the word ‘control’ and seeming to hold out for some kind of Illuminati narrative 2. you’re falsely accusing me of promoting a ct and 3. you are doing nothing to support your counter-argument, which is… we’re there for entirely humanitarian reasons? I’m not really sure. The oil motive isn’t a conspiracy theory any more than it was a conspiracy to station troops in Saudia Arabia during the [first Gulf War](http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0838511.html): > [@](#): > > On Aug. 7 [1990], U.S. troops moved into Saudi Arabia to protect Saudi oil fields. See? Using the US military to protect oil fields is precedented. Wars for humanitarian reasons? Not so much. I’m saying NATO wants to prevent a repeat of [this](http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0613-02.htm) in Libya: > [@](#): > > Local residents said the pipeline had been attacked by Iraqis using explosives around 8:45 pm (1645 GMT) Thursday, the same day Iraq awarded its first post-war oil export contracts. > > “It’s to stop the Americans taking the oil out to Turkey,” said Khidr Aziz. Preventing sabotage is all the ‘control’ that I’m implying. If the term is really so worrisome, maybe you would like to suggest something better. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2011, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/172 "2011-04-30T02:31:38Z")
> [@Nadir](#): > > Because to say it’s all about the oil or not, either way is extremely oversimplifying the complex geo-political socio-economic morass of the human condition on this planet today. > > That’s why. > > Oil is but one of many factors in the Libyan portion of the equation, and rather small one at that. It may be comforting to lump stuff together and feel secure in your understanding of reality as 'twere. Just don’t kid yourself. 😉 I never said it was the only reason. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2011, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/173 "2011-04-30T02:41:02Z")
My date is here, I’m running out of time. Someone said Libya just isn’t a big enough player to matter in oil terms, that it isn’t comparable to Saudi Arabia or even Venezuela. I think that misses the point. For one, Saudi Arabia probably doesn’t have as much oil as they claim. From a [wikileaks article:](http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/08/oil-saudiarabia) > [@](#): > > Al-Husseini, who maintains close ties to Aramco executives, believes that the Saudi oil company has oversold its ability to increase production and will be unable to reach the stated goal of 12.5 million b/d of sustainable capacity by 2009. The comparison to Venezuela is irrelevant as there isn’t anything threatening their output AFAIK. Libya, I think, is going to grow in importance as an oil producer. From [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Libya): > [@](#): > > Libya is considered a highly attractive oil area due to its low cost of oil production (as low as $1 per barrel at some fields), and proximity to European markets > [@](#): > > Most of Libya remains unexplored as a result of past sanctions and disagreements with foreign oil companies. Point is, Libya is still drilling very easy-to-get oil, and besides that is not much explored. Yes I’m speculating but it stands to reason that they could increase their production, probably significantly, at a time when most other producers are in decline. Finn Again says it doesn’t make sense to support the rebels for oil reasons. I disagree- my whole point is that desperate doomed rebels are likely to sabotage the oil ports and other infrastructure. They went right for those instead of building a fortress in the desert, right? Its a risk I don’t think NATO is willing to take at this time. Darnit, I am out of time. This is rushed- I’ll be back tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2011, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/174 "2011-04-30T12:42:30Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > I’m not out to _ad hominem_ the posters here, **Monty**. Then don’t do that. > [@](#): > > I really doubt I will walk away from this a Monty-hater, FWIW. I don’t care if you like me, love me, despise me, or display complete disinterest to me. The level of your affection towards me has zero bearing on the issue of fact at hand. That issue, in case you need reminding, is that you have asserted–and continue to assert, evidently–that the US military controls the oil. You have failed to provide credible substantiation for that assertion even after repeated requests to do so. > [@](#): > > I did get a little snippy I guess, but that is because 1. I don’t feel like you’ve responded to anything I’ve said at all, except for latching onto the word ‘control’ and seeming to hold out for some kind of Illuminati narrative You guess? You’re still getting snippy. I have responded to you. What you seem to not like too much is that I am continuing to ask you to provide support of your assertion. A mantra is not proof. Again, what is your actual and credible proof that “the US military controls the oil”? > [@](#): > > 1. you’re falsely accusing me of promoting a ct Don’t call me a liar. > [@](#): > > and 3. you are doing nothing to support your counter-argument, which is… we’re there for entirely humanitarian reasons? I’m not really sure. Where have I ever said any of that? Here’s the way it’s worked on this site’s Great Debates board for years: the poster who makes an assertion backs up that assertion. I’ve asked you to provide proof of your assertion. You have failed to provide, in case you need reminding, actual and credible support of the assertion you made. > [@](#): > > The oil motive isn’t a conspiracy theory any more than it was a conspiracy to station troops in Saudia Arabia during the [first Gulf War](http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0838511.html): > > See? Using the US military to protect oil fields is precedented. Wars for humanitarian reasons? Not so much. > > I’m saying NATO wants to prevent a repeat of [this](http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0613-02.htm) in Libya: > Preventing sabotage is all the ‘control’ that I’m implying. If the term is really so worrisome, maybe you would like to suggest something better. And none of that proves your assertion that, once again, if you need reminding, “the US military controls the oil”. Again, if you’re going to make up definitions of words, you might want to share those definitions with others so everyone can be on the same page in the conversation. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2011, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/175 "2011-05-03T12:50:39Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > And none of that proves your assertion that, once again, if you need reminding, “the US military controls the oil”. I’ve provided you with cites of examples where the US military is in parts of the Middle East for explicitly oil-related reasons. I could provide more examples of burning oil infrastructure, and in every case it will be accompanied by American troops (or troops from an American-led coalition) seeming to shake their heads as if to say, “Damn, we should have controlled that oil.” I can’t show you any photos of burning oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia though because, presumably, the US military has ‘control’ over that situation. Not the Chinese, not the Nazis or the Russians or anyone else… Whether or not you want to allow the word ‘control’ to describe our military’s relationship to the oil is, I suppose, subject to debate. But please note: It doesn’t matter! I know what I said in post #3. Those words have certainly become a bone of contention, no? But what really matters here, if you want to talk about ‘how things work around here’, is what I said in post #1. You know, the OP. Some oil the US certainly does Not control right now is Libyan oil. That country has had an unlikable dictator for something like 4 decades, but at the precise moment this dictator is no longer ‘in control’ of his oil ports, NATO became militarily involved, defending God-knows-who from massacre when, in so many other recent conflicts around the world, even in Africa, so many other groups have been simply, you know, massacred. What’s different about Libya? Yah, they are close to Europe, same with Kosovo, check. Also, the party in question _controls some oil._ They can blow up the ports if threatened, which gives them a metric shit ton of leverage in today’s peak-plateau point in history where minus 1.5 million bbd/day shocks the global oil market and affects everyone negatively. The question is: doncha think oil has ANYTHING to do with our involvement in Libya? If yes, ok now we’re getting somewhere. Why, in your opinion, don’t we then admit that? (I’d _cite_ that we’re there for oil reasons, but the point of the thread is that politicians aren’t saying so. I can provide examples of politicians not fessing up to other things if you thing this phenomenon is unprecedented) If no… how can you say that? ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2011, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/176 "2011-05-03T13:59:35Z")
It’s bad enough you’re making up definitions on the fly. Now you’re making up stuff and pretending that I said it. Look. You made a CT comment and called on it. Admit you were wrong. You certainly don’t have any proof that your assertion is correct. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2011, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/177 "2011-05-05T04:31:33Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > It’s bad enough you’re making up definitions on the fly. Now you’re making up stuff and pretending that I said it. > > Look. You made a CT comment and called on it. Admit you were wrong. You certainly don’t have any proof that your assertion is correct. This is a funny thread. I don’t think I _ad hominemed_ anybody. I was being polite because you seemed upset. The only one _ad homineming_ anybody here is you, every time you proclaim that I am promoting conspiracy theories. Please stop doing that. I concede that I have not supplied a satisfactorily rigorous cite as per your demands. I have tried to focus on the reasoning models of, for instance, yes-no questions such as, “Don’t you agree there are a finite number of combinations of motives for military intervention in Libya?” And, “Oil- Yes or No?” Long story short, if I cite a US military representative acknowledging the need for ‘control’ in response to burning Kuwaiti oil fields at the same time that Saudi oil fields are being ‘controlled’ by another group of US forces, would that count for anything? Check out [Iraq sets Kuwaiti oil fields afire, digs in defenses](http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-01-23/news/1991023089_1_saudi-arabia-scud-oil-fields): > [@](#): > > “We all realize that we need to keep things under a fair amount of control,” said Capt. Rick Henson of Forrest City, Ark., an F-15E weapons system officer on missions to destroy mobile Scud launchers. > [@](#): > > Iraq sabotaged Kuwaiti oil fields yesterday and repositioned its front-line defenses in anticipation a U.S.-led ground assault, U.S. and Arab military officials said. > > Iraq also continued to rain Scud missiles on Saudi Arabia, attacking this eastern city as well as the Saudi capital, Riyadh, repeatedly. The attacks included the first-ever daylight raid on this country during the war, when three Scuds were fired toward Dhahran after sunrise. January 23, 1991 See? While the US controls Saudi oil, Saddam goes after it with missiles- whatever was at his disposal, he was just that way. He wanted to take out whatever oil he, uh, ‘controlled’ if he couldn’t keep it by right of conquest. That was the threat, and even though he was defeated, he followed through on that much. I’m saying NATO would rather not see the Libyan oil infrastructure destroyed, and sees the defeat of its conquerors as a precipitator of that possibility. Hence the intervention. Among other reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2011, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/178 "2011-05-05T08:07:50Z")
Once again, you are pretending others are saying stuff that they, in fact, have not said. The US military does not now control, nor has it ever controlled, oil. You still have not provided anything at all resembling a reputable source for that pretense that they do. Also, you evidently do not know what _ad hominem_ is as I have never done that. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2011, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/179 "2011-05-07T03:34:35Z")
I think I’ve drawn a rahter bright line between ‘controlling’ and ‘not controlling’ oil. Kuwaiti fields burned; Saudi fields did not. What are you debating? ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2011, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/180 "2011-05-07T03:48:26Z")
The US military burned the Kuwaiti fields? Dude, you’re completely unfamiliar with fact if you think that’s the case. I’m done with you in this thread. Your pretenses are, well, let’s just say that the GD rules prohibit saying what they are. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468.md?page=10)