Why not admit we are in Libya for oil reasons?

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Monty

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.

Boy, talk about misunderstanding what I’m saying. The title of my cite was “Iraq sets Kuwaiti oil fields afire, digs in defenses” :rolleyes:
Anyway, I always meant to respond to this:

@FinnAgain

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.

Context is everything. The Axis wanted to ‘control’ Europe, in a rather totalitarian way, no? Immediately after that the Soviets wanted to control Europe in their very own totalitarian way. The Allied/US military prevented both of those outcomes, but, not having totalitarian control as their goal, left Europe to pursue self-determination instead.

So the Allies sort of did ‘control’ Europe, only the point was to prevent a Nazi conquest/survive and let it go on more or less as before. The troop presence is a vestige of that time, though why they’re still there now I can’t claim to understand. To keep the peace? To make sure Germany pays its reparations? shrug But really it is ‘controlled’ in the sense that today it isn’t Nazi-Gaul or Reichsbelgium and so on.

[Ravenman]

You quote a backseater on an F-15 saying “We need to keep things under control” as a cite for the US controlling the world’s oil supply?

What’s next, you quote Seymour the school bus driver saying “I take iPods away from kids just to keep them in line” as evidence of da Jooz controlling the entertainment industry?

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Ravenman

You quote a backseater on an F-15 saying “We need to keep things under control” as a cite for the US controlling the world’s oil supply?

The Middle East doesn’t amount to ‘the world’s oil supply’. The point I am making with that example is that with Saddam’s forces occupying/retreating from Kuwait, the oil fields burned. Retreating armies do that to oil fields- Saddam didn’t invent the idea. With US forces occupying/defending/what-you-want-to-call-it Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, the oil fields did not burn, securing the strategic goal of ensuring the free flow of oil. That strikes me as ‘control’- I’ve offered to discuss some other characterization of the US military relationship to the oil if this word bothers people so much but none has been forthcoming.

What’s next, you quote Seymour the school bus driver saying “I take iPods away from kids just to keep them in line” as evidence of da Jooz controlling the entertainment industry?

Also not forthcoming is any explanation of why my statement ‘the US controls the oil’ is a conspiracy theory. I’m not claiming they own it and only dole it out to who they like. They keep it from being compromised by hostiles for the sake of a stable global market. I can’t for the life of me see why that’s crazy.

Please try to look at it this way:
case1: The US controls the oil. Allright, why not admit we are in Libya for oil reasons?
case2: US military presence in the Middle East is motivated by the sunny climate for the sake of a mission of passivity. If they control anything, oil isn’t it. Ok, why not admit we are in Libya for oil reasons?

[gonzomax]

@Ravenman

As it happens, I have a graduate degree in the history of international relations, and I’m quite expert on US foreign policy. You’re barking up the wrong tree if your main lines of argument are that (a) I don’t know history and (b) the existence of a resource in a geographical area is prima facie evidence that the sole cause of current events in that area is due to the existence of such resources.

The fact is that the only evidence that the 2003 Iraq invasion was about oil rests on reading into various circumstantial facts through a preconceived notion based on one’s politics; not a dispassionate reading of the known facts.

There is no direct evidence that the war was based on “control” of oil. The fact that oil was discussed in relation to Iraq in the runup to the war means only that – hold on to your hat – oil is an important resource to Iraq, and to the world. You haven’t connected any dots to show that US control of oil was a goal for the invasion, and the record clearly reflects heaps and heaps of evidence that the war was about George Bush being a cowboy.

http://www.brussellstribunal.org/Meyer/Oil.htm This has come out recently in England. The oil spoils were split up by oil companies and the governments before the invasion. It was a big story.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/03/iraq.oil It was the plan.