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.
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.
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). 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?
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.
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.
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…
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.
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:
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 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.
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:
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:
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.
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.
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”?
Don’t call me a liar.
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.
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.
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)
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:
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.
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.
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.
