Proof America after Libyas oil!

Scroll to see replies

Proof isn't really needed. Whenever a country (usually America) invades or acts hostility towards a country that has large oil reserves then the Army obviously isn't going there for a jolly boys outing.

Neither America or Britain are sending ground troups into Libya. :colonhash:

Reply 41

10joey10

It isn't all about oil. For those making the argument that Libya is high on the list of oil producing nations, there is no argument with that, it is. But to use air power against Gaddaffi doesnt increase the likelihood of oil either reducing in price, or of production in Libya increasing. Had the UNSC not passed the resoulution, Gadaffi would still be murdering his own people and "stabilising" the country for oil production.

But then, if we (The West, UNSC permanent 5, NATO etc) were to stand by and let the genocide continue, without a concern for either the humanitarian disaster in eastern Libya, OR our strategic interests in securing Libya and stabilising a country on the edge of Europe, the international community would be lambasted for failing to intervene. You can't have it both ways!

Reply 42

Smack

Volunteer Team

Original post by amsie/

So you reckon they went in for humanitarian reasons?

They obviously didn't go in for oil if 0% of their supply comes from there!

The top exporters of oil to America are Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Brazil and Algeria.

It is France's oil interested that lie in Libya.

Reply 43

username133326

Oh yeah, just like all that oil that was stolen from Iraq..... oh wait, that was none.

Reply 44

amsie/

Original post by IGregg

You are changing my words, I am not saying he is intervening to become more popular but if he pulls it off then he is going to get rewards when it comes to support. How much, or if at all that entered his mind, only he could tell you.

And it was through the UN, there was a resolution passed? Britain, France and the US (I think it's the sixth fleet based near by) are the only countries in the area with the military capability to pull it off properly.. It's only logical they take the lead.

Isn't that the same thing- he intervenes to get more support for, what- his image?
Yes, the UN did agree, but why did we place so much emphasis on Libya over Bahrain?

Reply 45

Organ

Regardless of the exact motivations (and I doubt there is one specific reason) coalition forces have prevented an absolute massacre in Benghazi. This is a good thing.

Original post by amsie/

Isn't that the same thing- he intervenes to get more support for, what- his image?
Yes, the UN did agree, but why did we place so much emphasis on Libya over Bahrain?

It's just not feasable to do this in Bahrain, and the Bahrainis are not as insane as Gaddafi - Benghazi would be red with blood if he hadn't been stopped - just look at what is happening in misurata (even with coalition planes overhead).

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 46

10joey10

Original post by Stenner

Sorry, can you just remind me when this invasion of Libya was? Can't seem to find it on the news.

Ha, so true. These guys are banging on about an invasion, i see no ground troops :doh:

The coalition, with the invitation of the Arab league and the UN (it doesn't get more legitimate than that) are using air power to set up a no-fly zone and protect civilians. Will you please all go read the actual resolution (1973) before stating things that just aren't true.

Also the only reason it is American and British/French lead is because the US/NATO is the only nation with the military assets to initiate such an attack on ground instillations and to prevent Gadaffi's forces targetting civilians around Benghazi, as he has been doing for weeks.

Reply 47

Munchies-YumYum

Churchill used to say: History teaches us only one thing: That man can never learn from history.

Reply 48

amsie/

Original post by Smack

Yes, but I find it hard to believe that the UN gives a **** about Libyan citizens. If they cared so much, why don't they intervene in Zimbabwe- they've got it a lot worse.

Reply 49

Drunk Punx

Original post by Darkphilosopher

Neither America or Britain are sending ground troups into Libya. :colonhash:

Yet.
I'm aware that so far they haven't.

Did America do anything concerning Zimbabwe during Mugabe's rule, just out of interest?
If not, then why not Zimbabwe then but Libya now? Oil.

Also, fuel prices have gone up (as I assume you're aware) by quite a bit. Britain and America's role in Libya will be a combination of oil interests and showing face so that the rest of the world doesn't think that we're/they're dicks for not doing anything when the **** hit the fan.
Another war really isn't what we need right now.

Reply 50

Fusilero

Original post by Barden

Oh yeah, just like all that oil that was stolen from Iraq..... oh wait, that was none.

If we wanted oil from Iraq letting Saddam annex Kuwait he probably would have continued to give favourable contracts to Western Companies. The Iraqi Constitution even explicitly mentions the protection of the Iraqi Oil Industry for the Iraqi people.

If the USA and other Western Powers had continued to maintain it's stance of criticizing Libya without pushing for intervention it would have been able to continue trading contacts. As it stands now we've isolated Libya to an extent that it will take years, if not decades, to normalise trade relations (assuming Gaddafi remains in power).

Reply 51

IGregg

Original post by amsie/

Isn't that the same thing- he intervenes to get more support for, what- his image?
Yes, the UN did agree, but why did we place so much emphasis on Libya over Bahrain?

If you remember when this Libya incident started, the US, UK, etc.. only move was to evacuate there citizens. Now it has become a pretty much full scale war they are stepping in, it is not a full scale war in Bahrain. The US have spoken out against Bahrain like they did Libya and I would put money on it that if Bahrain did similar then appropriate action would be taken.

Reply 52

Aj12

Original post by tillytots

Proof wasn't needed, we all knew it anyway.

Then explain to me how America will take control of oil fields without any troops?

Reply 53

cybergrad

Original post by asdfg0987

Pretty sure oil is Sudan's main export.

It is becoming now but this is peanuts when compared to other African countries. Their leaders are good puppets for us at the moment, although they had a lot of slaughtering in their country we did not intervene. Now things have calmed down and a small peace keeping UN force try to keep the people from slaughtering each other. Next goal, to move in the big oil companies and see if there are enough oil reserves to make it worthwhile for us to intervene. Time will tell....

Reply 54

lukejoshjedi

Cynical accusations with no real evidence or proof, just speculation. Claims of 'Oil wars' are just a bit boring and tired now... it can never ultimately be proved, just like you can't prove Saddam didn't have WMDs' in the early 2000s' or not, he could have exported them... they could have been destroyed

And anyway, why continually attack Libya if it just drives up oil prices, complicates the market and is detrimental to the oil market in general (something bad for almost all countries, esecpially the US)

Reply 55

iainthegreat

Original post by IGregg

Libya is behind the UK and the Netherlands in oil exports. Surely common sense tells you if they wanted oil they would go into Iran which produces pretty much twice as much?

Yeah but could you imagine how much **** would kick off if they went into Iran?

Libya is perfect because there is an almost believable alibi.

Reply 56

karateworm

Surely it'd make much more sense to let Gadaffi destroy the rebels and continue business as usual? The rebels are fairly anti-western... by supporting them we're really undermining the oil supply.

We don't actually have any ground troops in Libya, how are we going to take the oil?

It's not America spear-heading this... it's Britain and France.

... and the whole thing about Egypt. That's crazy, it was totally different. Mubarack wasn't sending armies of tanks or launching heavy artillery at his people, was he?

When it comes to the Iraq war, I totally agree... when it comes to pretty much anything the government does, I agree it's selfish - but the argument that this is all for oil is stupid.

Reply 57

iainthegreat

Original post by Aj12

Then explain to me how America will take control of oil fields without any troops?

Doesn't need to, the US will have a large input to the new regime after Gaddafi and will make sure whoever is in power will trade more favourably with the US.

Reply 58

amsie/

Original post by IGregg

Right, so the un would only intervene when it was on the brink of becoming a civil war?

Reply 59

cybergrad

Original post by Stenner

Sorry, can you just remind me when this invasion of Libya was? Can't seem to find it on the news.

Did you see on the news that the UN approved the bombardment of Libya? No, UN approved the creation of a no-fly zone. Yet, I see buildings and tanks blown up by the coalition forces, they must have a flying variety of buildings and tanks in Libya.

Give it time Stenner, the invasion is fast approaching, this will only lead to a civil war, just like in Iraq, still I don't see much peace there.