Why not admit we are in Libya for oil reasons?

[Marley23]

@Dick_Dastardly

She didn’t resign over this specific issue but she resigned over our Middle Eastern policy in general. But here she’s definitely saying oil is our major interest over there.

Your cite says very clearly that Slaughter supported intervening in Libya. If anything she resigned because the U.S. didn’t act soon enough. She said “The international community cannot stand by and watch the massacre of Libyan protesters” and “It is time to act.” She was saying that by not getting involved, the U.S. was choosing oil over human rights. I think you also made her role sound more important than it was, but I don’t know the inner workings of the state department.

Our plan was to have had a US-appointed governing council write a constitution which would have privatised all of Iraq’s oil and then an Iraqi government kept in power and protected by the US military and advised by American advisors with Iraqi leaders who’d been on the US payroll for decades would have been in charge of deciding which oil companies got the rights to Iraq’s newly-privatised oil. Yeah.

And again, none of it ever happened.

[TriPolar]

@Jackmannii

That’s what They want you to think. :mad::smack:

Umm…ok, which ‘They’?

[Marley23]

Adding to the above: obviously Middle Eastern oil is a big deal to the U.S. and other countries and it drives a lot of the attention that’s paid to the region. Is this military intervention ‘really’ about oil and the human rights stuff is just a nice benefit? No. That’s dramatically oversimplifying things.

[gonzomax]

@Marley23

Your cite says very clearly that Slaughter supported intervening in Libya. If anything she resigned because the U.S. didn’t act soon enough. She said “The international community cannot stand by and watch the massacre of Libyan protesters” and “It is time to act.” She was saying that by not getting involved, the U.S. was choosing oil over human rights. I think you also made her role sound more important than it was, but I don’t know the inner workings of the state department.
And again, none of it ever happened.

When Bremer took over the rule of Iraq, he instituted these policies among many others.
He privatized Iraq’s over 200 manufacturing companies. These companies made washing machines and other products.
He cut the corporate tax from 40 percent to 15.
He allowed foreigners to own 100, percent of Iraqi companies. They could take 100 percent of profits out and did not have to invest in Iraq.
He made rules against unions and collective bargaining.
IT was always about money and business. It looks like a blueprint for what they want to do here.
Oh yeah, they took over the oil fields.

[Marley23]

@gonzomax

When Bremer took over the rule of Iraq, he instituted these policies among many others.

We’re discussing oil, not washing machines and collective bargaining. I’m not surprised Bremer set up policies that were supported by the administration he was a part of. Unless you’re going to tell me the invasion was about setting up a lower tax rate in Iraq, it’s off topic.

[Marley23]

@Magiver

I was surprised that someone like you said this.

Oil is a world commodity. It doesn’t matter who sells to who. It only matter that it flows. The wild spikes at the pump show this. The Libyan war is affecting the market bidding for future deliveries. We don’t get first rights from our suppliers because we’re a golly group of buyers. He who pays the most gets the oil.

OK, I see your point of view here - it’s that resolving the war would help stabilize oil prices. Although intervening against Gadhafi seems to have prolonged the war, if anything.

[Lust4Life]

Quadaffi has been a nut job dictator for many years and has been idolised by the general Libyan population.
Many of whom are playing the saintly, democracy seeking innocents now.

We in the West(apart from the air raid) did nothing against him inspite of his being the instigator of Lockerbie, Supplying the I.R.A. with money, weapons and training and other terrorist organisations in the West.

But now we are all "bleeding heart"for them.

Is it a coincidence that after the genuinlly spontaneous popular demonstrations against the Mad Dog regime in Iran, that Shias in Western friendly Middle Eastern states are having "popular "uprisings , against the Sunnis?

I personally am not a Muslim and have no bias in religion for one for the other .

But you can have popular uprisings like Ghandi’s and you can popular uprisings that resulted in the Iranian theocracy, or lynch mobs.

We can’t change how people feel in the M.E. except after maybe a few centuries, and to think that they’re going to go all "goo goo"about democracy after we’ve explained what its all about just isn’t going to happen .

They like what they’ve got whatever the American/British housewife watching the news thinkls that they know whats best for them.

IMO the uprising in Libya is an accidental overspill of someones elses projects.

I have no love for Quadaffi.

I also think that our new British P.M. wants to make a name for himself as an international staesman, inspite of his complete lack of knowledge or experience.
And that is why he’s so keen to jump start yet another war for the poor old,getting increasingly tired.,armed forces .
Theres been too many "Flag Draped “going through Wooton Basset”, time to call a halt.

[Marley23]

@Lust4Life

But you can have popular uprisings like Ghandi’s and you can popular uprisings that resulted in the Iranian theocracy, or lynch mobs.

And those are the only options, in your opinion?

[Uzi]

I think he is being naive if he thinks that the culture would result in a Ghandi like movement.

[Monty]

Still waiting on that cite, Try2B Comprehensive.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

Sorry, my gf is going to have me tied up tonight (not literally). I will have to get back to you tomorrow- I am not just disappearing. Sorry to confuse you with Marley, Monty.

Some quick points
-I hadn’t considered the refugee angle. Preventing a flood of desperate people does seem to make sense. Cause for war? I don’t know. But if that is part of the motive, it seems consistent with why the West hasn’t intervened in other massacres: no risk of a refugee influx from them. In this case my political doublespeak translator interprets “prevent a bloodbath” as “avoid a big refugee problem for us”. Cynical, yes.

-Marley’s “opportunity” explanation doesn’t sound so bad either. It would be hard to deny that Khaddafi has been/is a nasty pain in the neck, and this rebellion is a chance to show him the door at last. He seems to have gotten a pass on everything since he gave up his nuclear ambitions, but the rebellion changes things. And admittedly war logistics are simpler in Libya compared to other places (though Afghanistan isn’t convenient and we’ve been there for years, hence this consideration can’t be viewed as a showstopper IMHO).

-“If we were concerned with oil we’d side with Khaddafi”- I’m not so sure about this one. At the time the intervention started the rebels were already in control of the main oil regions and ports. At that point if their situation became utterly hopeless and they were all going to die, who says they wouldn’t take a “Screw you, Khaddafi/world! We’re taking your ports/pipelines/etc with us!!!” This would throw a wrench in the world oil market for sure.

So, I am admitting that other considerations come into play. I still think oil is toward the top of the list though, which leaves my original question unanswered: Why can’t we cop to it? Why do we hide our oily motives? Does anyone believe oil plays no part in the motive whatsoever?

[Monty]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

Sorry to confuse you with Marley, Monty.

Not a problem. The rest of my list still stands, though.

So, I am admitting that other considerations come into play. I still think oil is toward the top of the list though, which leaves my original question unanswered: Why can’t we cop to it? Why do we hide our oily motives? Does anyone believe oil plays no part in the motive whatsoever?

Okay, so you’re now saying that oil is toward the top. But are you backing off of our assertion that “the military controls the oil”? What is your evidence that the US military controls the oil? And please don’t bring up the Strategic Oil Reserve. For one thing, that’s not all the oil. For another, the US military does not control that.

[Monty]

Change “our assertion” above to “your assertion.” Thanks.

[Ravenman]

@Dick_Dastardly

Other than stuff relating to Israe, pretty much everything we’ve done there over the last sixty years is about oil.

False. The Afghanistan war had nothing to do with oil. The argument that the 2003 Iraq war was about oil is just conspiracy theory. There are enough examples of conflicts in oil-rich countries that we have not directly intervened in (Nigeria, Mexico, Algeria, Angola, Sudan, among others) to show that the presence of oil is not a sufficient condition to spur the US to military action.

And let’s get perspective here: Libya produces less than one sixth of the oil that the US does. Britain produces more oil than Libya. Libya isn’t even among the top 15 oil suppliers to the United States – Cite.

There are much worse atrocities going on in Africa right now, far more people being denied freedom. And we don’t give a shit, except for arming/supporting various groups in resource-rich countries.

As has been stated elsewhere, the costs and risks of intervention in other countries is far greater in many of those countries you refer to than what is currently the case in Libya. It’s right to be upset about human rights abuses in Somalia, for example, but it’s pretty clear that it would take a massive international intervention to actually solve the problem, which is a cost that would completely dwarf what is actually being done in Libya. Are you saying that because the world isn’t willing to mount a huge invasion of Somalia, that therefore the West cannot dedicate several dozen aircraft and ships to perhaps turn the tide in Libya?

Would you use this example in other contemporary issues? For example, because the United States isn’t sending in troops to battle the hugely powerful Mexican drug cartels, we shouldn’t worry about numerous smaller criminal enterprises engaged in human trafficking from Eastern Europe?

One cannot use the example of non-intervention in one country as an argument against intervening elsewhere, because the situations may be vastly different.

[Marley23]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

Afghanistan isn’t convenient and we’ve been there for years

Afghanistan was the base for an attack on the U.S. and its government was tied to Al Qaeda. Opportunity wasn’t the issue there.

-“If we were concerned with oil we’d side with Khaddafi”- I’m not so sure about this one. At the time the intervention started the rebels were already in control of the main oil regions and ports.

Unfortunately that didn’t last very long.

Why can’t we cop to it?

Well, given that you haven’t really demonstrated you’re right, there’s little reason for anyone to admit you’re right.

[appleciders]

@Uzi

If you think that the rebels, whoever they are, will implement anything like democracy as we in the west know it, I’ve got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. It ain’t going to happen. The culture won’t allow it. It will most likely be another strongman type regime of one form or another or it will be religious based.

Maybe. But things are really going pretty smoothly in Tunisia and Egypt, all things considered. Sure, Libya is neither of those countries, but I think that there’s enough similarity to think that it’s at least a possibility. Besides, Qaddafi sponsored terrorism-- how much worse can it get?

[Lust4Life]

@Marley23

And those are the only options, in your opinion?

Quite honestly the British Armed Forces though brave and comitted are starting to get a little worn out.

We’re like a man who’s roof is leaking and hasn’t really got the money to have it repaired, so tries to do it himself …

And then keeps running off down the road to stop kids bullying other kids, helps a neighbour repair their fence and so on.
All the while rain is pouring in through his roof.

We joined in, in the Korean War.

We took over the overflights in secret after Gary Powers was shot down.

And took quite a large amount of body bags in the process,explained to the next of kin as “training accidents”

We spent a very long time stopping the communities in Northern Ireland butchering each other.

And then we have Gulf one and Two, Bosnia peace keeping in Iraq, Afghan, and it seems to be every bloody conflictin the world that the locals should sort out for themselves.

EVEN bloody Namibia in my memory where a good mate of mine died, though it was only U.N. something or other.
Don’t get me wrong we quite enjoy a good war, but enough is enough.

The pitcher has gone one too bloody many times to the well.

The cupboard is fucking empty Cameron.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Monty

Still waiting on that cite, Try2B Comprehensive.

Give me another day.

For now the best I can do is Last Night I Had The Strangest Dream.

[humanafterall]

All the US really knows about the Libyan rebel force is that they are just a bunch of angry college kids with guns. They can’t even fire a mortar or a bazooka. IMHO, they should not be having the revolution, because none of them can be called a trained soldier. Qaddafi is the one with the resources and the trained soldiers, so he should win this. The only thing that kept those angry kids alive so far has been US/NATO intervention.

[septimus]

Yesterday rebrowsing a Seymour Hersh book I came across an interesting claim. It’s not about Libya, but mentions a sense in which oil may have helped precipitate the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Recall that Iraq was already under severe sanctions to prevent them from acquiring WMD’s, that these sanctions were being violated with the cooperation of Western oil interests, and that “smarter” sanctions were being proposed to block Iraq’s military imports while alleviating Iraqi suffering. Such “smarter” sanctions would have lessened any military risk from Iraq, but

[QUOTE=Seymour Hersh in Chain of Command]

November [2001] the Bush Administration agreed to delay for six months its insistence on “smart sanctions” which would enable the United Nations to crack down on [potentially military goods]… Major purchasers [of Iraqi oil] included ExxonMobil, Chevron … who routinely bought the oil through third parties. As many as 800,000 barrels of that oil a day ended up in the U.S. market.
[/QUOTE]

Hersh provides no citation, not does he connect the dots here. I tried Googling briefly, and gave up after finding a very interesting article, though probably irrelevant to Hersh’s claim.