Why not admit we are in Libya for oil reasons?

[Dick_Dastardly]

It’d be nice to get a reply to my posts.

[septimus]

@Dick_Dastardly

And as for a year after the invasion thing. Come on. The biggest ever attack on the US mainland by a foreign force and he gioves up in public after a year? A year is a satisfactorily long time to spend trying to get the perpetrator? How soon had he given up in private?

Do you have me set to “Ignore this User”? Just curious.

[Dick_Dastardly]

@septimus

Do you have me set to “Ignore this User”? Just curious.

No, I’m not sure what I’m supposed to reply to.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Marley23

Yes, and Afghanistan was about a natural gas pipeline and Iraq was about getting cheap oil to the U.S. The fact that neither of these things ever happened is no impediment, right? I’m sure this time it’s about the oil. They wouldn’t do that to you three times in a row.

You’re a mod in GD, so please humor me this once and tell us why arguments in the form of “False claims have been made about wars in the past; therefore NATO’s intervention in Libya has nothing to do with oil” are not sound, mmmkay?

@Monty

I don’t care what your feeling is about a fact. As many others have noted on this board many times, “you are entitled to your own opinion; however, you are not entitled to your own facts.” You tossed out an opinion as though it is a fact and you tossed it in Great Debates. You have nothing simply because there is nothing factual to support the opinion that “The US military controls the oil.”

My bad- I assumed people had been reading the thread. xenophon41 referenced the Carter Doctrine:

The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. The doctrine was a response to the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, and was intended to deter the Soviet Union—the Cold War adversary of the United States—from seeking hegemony in the Gulf. After stating that Soviet troops in Afghanistan posed “a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil,” Carter proclaimed:

The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two-thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must flow. The Soviet Union is now attempting to consolidate a strategic position, therefore, that poses a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil.

This situation demands careful thought, steady nerves, and resolute action, not only for this year but for many years to come. It demands collective efforts to meet this new threat to security in the Persian Gulf and in Southwest Asia. It demands the participation of all those who rely on oil from the Middle East and who are concerned with global peace and stability. And it demands consultation and close cooperation with **countries in the area which might be threatened.

**
Meeting this challenge will take national will, diplomatic and political wisdom, economic sacrifice, and, of course, military capability. We must call on the best that is in us to preserve the security of this crucial region.

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force. 

bolding mine

Is it really a conspiracy theory to assert that the US is adhering to its stated strategic policy goals by intervening in Libya- for oil reasons?

[Monty]

You asserted that the US military controls the oil. You still have failed to provide anything at all credible to support that assertion.

[xenophon41]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

xenophon41 referenced the Carter Doctrine:

Is it really a conspiracy theory to assert that the US is adhering to its stated strategic policy goals by intervening in Libya- for oil reasons?

I mentioned that Libya and the North Africa theater are pretty far from the Persian Gulf region, and that it would therefore be questionable whether the Carter Doctrine could be applied to our interests there. Others have pointed out the relatively low importance of Libya to the world oil economy.

And, as Monty keeps reminding you, the contention is not about America’s strategic interest in protecting the flow of oil, it’s about your assertion that the US military controls the oil.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@xenophon41

And, as Monty keeps reminding you, the contention is not about America’s strategic interest in protecting the flow of oil, it’s about your assertion that the US military controls the oil.

Ok, both of you. We have military bases all over the region. Armies in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and now the Navy is in the Mediterranean (maybe it has been all along, I don’t know, I’m not with the Joint Chiefs after all). Bin Laden got pissed and attacked us because the Saudis allowed us to protect them militarily (to protect the oilfields, or am I wrong about that too, and why?) instead of his guys protecting the Saudis.

We have a significant military force all over the Persian Gulf region whose presence, to take Iraq as the best example, is pretty difficult to explain without resorting to the oil explanation. It is the stated doctrine of the United States to ‘protect the free flow of oil’, with military force if necessary, and we have been doing exactly that.

As for ‘control’, well let me refer to another link which someone was nice enough to post:

By the end of World War I the central place of petroleum in world strategy had become obvious, and the dramatic thirst of military operations had led to fears that there would be a global oil shortage, and to quick appreciation of the profits to be made in such circumstances

Access to oil is a top deciding factor in whether or not a modern army can wage war. If it comes down to it the US military can prevent the shipment of a very significant proportion of the world’s oil- what other country can say that?

Then there is the history of the West’s involvement in the region, and the history of warfare in general. Without oil in the Middle East, how different would the modern history of the place be? And how many examples can you guys offer of wars in which the motive is the-kindness-of-their-hearts? (While Britain is one of the primary belligerents in this conflict, I wouldn’t waste my time scouring their history for such an example, for example).

We get involved militarily in oil regions seemingly fairly easily. Cases in which major massacres occur (Sudan? Rwanda? Zimbabwe? others), in areas which are not vital to ‘the free flow of oil’, sure don’t seem to get much of our military attention. No?

And again, there are considerations of the economics of peak oil. Again, global oil production has been flat at ~86 million bb/d for five years now. Oil reached $147/bb at this rate in 2008, and post-recession demand continues to grow. If doomed and desperate rebels decide to take Libya’s oil infrastructure with them, global production drops ~2% to a new, lower plateau. New record oil prices are the likely result. Intervening amounts to trying to preserve the ‘free flow of oil’, which again is stated doctrine.

Libya may not have been strategically important in the past, but that could be changing. If Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia see a drop in production because they’ve passed their production peaks, and Libya turns out to be one of the less-exploited parts of the world which could actually increase capacity, well how big a deal is that in economic terms? How big a loss if they get taken off the market for a decade?

I suppose all this does not amount to a QED. But look at it this way: I have at least this much supporting the assertion that the Libyan intervention is motivated (primarily) by oil. To support the assertion that it is motivated by humanitarian concerns we have…

the things politicians say.

Is there a doctrine that says the US military is committed to intervening in foreign massacres?

[Monty]

You really don’t know what the meaning of the word control is, do you? And, one more time–perhaps you’ll even pay attention to it, this time–the bone of contention here is with your assertion that the US military controls oil.

[Farmer_Jane]

Somewhere on here I said it wasn’t about oil. I said that because we don’t have much to gain. But the real question should be ‘To what degree is oil important in this Libyan conflict in regards to the U.S.?’ (Well, if you’re in the U.S. like me.)

It’s silly to deny the importance oil can have in a region. The U.S. isn’t going to directly benefit from oil - we don’t get it from Libya and we probably never will - but other countries could potentially benefit. Or in the case of China…lose out. Oil = money and political power for whatever government is in charge. As of a few days ago, oil seems to = weapons for the rebels.

The big difference between Iraq and Afghanistan v. Libya is that Libya wasn’t pushed by the U.S. Instead of us “having a coalition”, we sort of got drafted into someone else’s coalition. Trust me, if President Obama thought that invading Libya would somehow ease our energy problems, he would have Cowboyed up and shut that shit down six weeks ago.

[Monty]

Who’s denying that oil can be important?

[Farmer_Jane]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

Is there a doctrine that says the US military is committed to intervening in foreign massacres?

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.

[Farmer_Jane]

@Monty

Who’s denying that oil can be important?

Nah, I’m just talking about the framing. I was so irritated with people saying that we were in Libya for oil that my initial responses (in my general everyday conversations) seemed to disregard the importance of oil completely. Others have had that attitude as well…it was in this and the other Libya thread.

Anyway, I said my .02 because I am tired of hearing about how politicians are liars or we didn’t care about Rwanda. We know that. So I think it’s a much more productive conversation if we talk about what the ulterior motives are. I won’t deny that resource-rich nations tend to be the ones we want to interfere in, but I don’t think our ulterior motives in foreign relations are always related to oil. It’s about who has power and how to balance power. Since oil can = power, we it often look as though we are oil crazy.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Monty

You really don’t know what the meaning of the word control is, do you? And, one more time–perhaps you’ll even pay attention to it, this time–the bone of contention here is with your assertion that the US military controls oil.

Yah, but my OP question is ‘Why not admit we are in Libya for oil reasons?’ Admit it, that’s the thread you’re in, so answer my question first, mmmmkay?

[Monty]

What particular part of the English language are you having problems comprehending here? I have only addressed the ridiculous assertion in your OP that “the US military controls the oil.” Got it? That’s all I’m asking you to provide proof for. You continue to flop around on that issue. At first, I didn’t believe you had any proof of that silliness. Now, I’m even more convinced since you continue to harp about other stuff in response to the direct question. Here it is, yet again, and maybe this time you’ll grasp that the question is only about your assertion about the US military controlling the oil:

Do you have any credible evidence that the US military controls the oil?

Short, succinct, and, apparently for everyone in this thread except you, easily understandable. Now, how about answering the question?

[Monty]

My mistake. The contention is not about your OP, it’s about your assertion in post #3 of the thread.

[Dick_Dastardly]

Just as a matter of interest, here’s a document former Bush the Lesser administration Treasury Secretary Paul O’ Neill released when he’d left office. It’s the agenda for the first BtL admin. cabinet meeting after Governor Bush stole the election. When it talks about “economic background on Iraq” I’d just like to point out that 97% of Iraq’s GDP before 1991 and sanctions etc. was its oil industry.

I’m particularly interested to read replies from people who don’t think we invaded Iraq because of oil. Here’s the linky:

http://thepriceofloyalty.ronsuskind.com/thebushfiles/archives/page83_22small.gif

[Monty]

“Stole the election.” :rolleyes: And the CTs keep on rollin’!

[Farmer_Jane]

@Monty

What particular part of the English language are you having problems comprehending here?

I got into trouble with a similar comment…questioning one’s reading comprehension skills are a no-no on SD.

[FinnAgain]

@Monty

“Stole the election.” :rolleyes: And the CTs keep on rollin’!

The rest of Dick’s conspiracy theory really is entertaining though. Evidently a single page Gif that has an attachment (that isn’t presented anyways) about Iraq’s economy is somehow proof that “the agenda for the first BtL admin” was that we “invaded Iraq because of oil.”

It’s not so much a cogent analysis of the piece as it is creative writing. As if, in a discussion about what we should do about Iraq, if the President gets a briefing on its economic situation, we must be planning to roll in there “because of oil”.

[Ravenman]

And the CIA World Factbook says that most of Grenada’s economy was based on tourism before we invaded. OMG, the Hilton family planned the overthrow of another country! :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: