The Student Room Group

Proof America after Libyas oil!

Scroll to see replies

Reply 80
Original post by amsie/
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.


The UN hasn't intervened in Zimbabwe due to a lack of support for action from many countries in the African Union. Many of which's leaders still regard Mugabe as a hero. (Not to say this is an adequate excuse, but one they're contempt to use nonetheless)

The Arab League supported action in Libya - at least initially.
Reply 81
If it was about oil we'd still be cosying up to Gaddafi in exchange for lucrative contracts (see BP, etc). He went and spoiled it all by massacring his own people.

It's a collective short-term memory loss going on here. In the 80s we bomb him (OK, the US do) for sponsoring terror. Then there's sanctions for years which half-bankrupt his economy. Then when he starts making conciliatory noises over Lockerbie, Chemical weapons and so on, we welcome him into the fold and start selling him copious amounts of 'clean' weaponry. Talks are held, deals are done, contracts are signed. Then his people catch a contagious whiff of 'democracy' from the neighbours, he falls back into 'mad dog dictator' mode and starts slaughtering them. If we sit back and let it happen we're guilty of putting business interests over human rights. Imagine the outcry - oil for blood. West ignores Libyan genocide (I've heard the G Word said half a dozen times now, for some reason) to safeguard oil interests. "Just like Iraq", they'll all cry, without knowing anything about Iraq, or much about Libya either.

Three things going on here: potential humanitarian crisis on Europe's doorstep. Italy/Spain/Greece/Malta don't much want to be swamped with Libyan refugees fleeing Gaddafi's genocide. Something must be done. Stung by accusations of inaction over Rwanda, if there's a chance of genocide they'll be on it fast. Too bloody fast. They were awfully quick to start justifying this military action in case it did happen.

Second, vested interests: big business contracts to be had in Libya which has been in isolation for a long time (not just oil). If Gaddafi is dragging his feet, playing hard to get, "Let's give the old bastard a push if he's outlived his usefulness". Strategic and economic interests are a huge factor in all this. But let's not oversimplify things with the oil conspiracy.

Third, our leaders have started to believe their own propaganda. They all got a bit carried away with the giddy rush of North African democratization and thought Libya would follow suit of its own accord. Problem is, they jumped the gun a bit. So what do we do? What worked for Saddam? I know - no-fly zone, a.k.a regime change. US/UK/NATO are the new global policemen. It has somehow become accepted that each week, dozens of civilians are going to be killed in drone strikes, whether in Afghanistan or Pakistan. The howls of protest are deafening only by their absence. But we've got form - it happened in Laos, and again in Cambodia, and we're still rewriting the history over that one.

So once again we see US/UK/NATO missiles heading off for $islamiccountry. I saw it live on TV in the 80s, I've seen it a dozen times since and I'm seeing it again now. The BBC commentator today said "Colonel Gaddafi must be regretting his defiance of the international community now, as Strike Phantom Task Force WTF disperse his troops with their smart weaponry". Bastard nearly jizzed his pants with excitement as he said it.
(edited 13 years ago)
Reply 82
Original post by Aj12
Well seeing a they are about to take a back seat in the coalition I doubt that.

Plus the US gets no oil or very little oil from Libya anyway.

Why would they bother doing this when they already have other sources for oil.

There is no reason for the US to do this for oil. Why bother with Libya when they would be far better off going for Iran. The US did not even support this intervention until a couple of days before it started.

There is no proof or evidence.The OP is just ranting about oil prices.


The US government acts on behalf of the multinational oil companies. This coalition are acting as hired henchmen for the oil industry.

You talk about invading Iran like it's an easy thing to do. The first stage of any war nowadays is to win the PR battle at home, they very nearly lost that battle with the WMD debacle with Iraq. You have to hand it to them that this time they've played the media superbly, who would have thought just a couple of months ago that they could bombard an oil rich arab country without provocation and get the public to support it?
Reply 83
ugh

its quite pathetic how if the west would not have got involved all the anti-westerners/anti-americans would have said 'well its obvious we are not getting involved we have oil deals with gaddafi lol America sux'

now that we are getting involved they are saying 'well its obvious we are getting invovled we want Gaddafi's oil lol America sux'

1. This mission is not led by America
2. It is not an invasion
3. If it really was about oil, then it was far more handy to keep Gaddafi in power since he already supplied the west with oil
4. If the west was to just sit by there would have been a genocide in Benghazi. Gaddafi himself said he will 'cleanse' all those who dont surrender to him - and in the delusional state this scumbag is in I am inclined to believe him.

It really is sad how people would have prefered to stand by and let a horrific massacre unfold just becaust 'it is not our business'. Im pretty sure the libyans in Benghazi think otherwise.
(edited 13 years ago)
Reply 84
Original post by Jez RR
If it was about oil we'd still be cosying up to Gaddafi in exchange for lucrative contracts (see BP, etc). He went and spoiled it all by massacring his own people.

It's a collective short-term memory loss going on here. In the 80s we bomb him (OK, the US do) for sponsoring terror. Then there's sanctions for years which half-bankrupt his economy. Then when he starts making conciliatory noises over Lockerbie, Chemical weapons and so on, we welcome him into the fold and start selling him copious amounts of 'clean' weaponry. Talks are held, deals are done, contracts are signed. Then his people catch a contagious whiff of 'democracy' from the neighbours, he falls back into 'mad dog dictator' mode and starts slaughtering them. If we sit back and let it happen we're guilty of putting business interests over human rights. Imagine the outcry - oil for blood. West ignores Libyan genocide to safeguard oil interests. "Just like Iraq", they'll all cry, without knowing anything about Iraq, or much about Libya either.

Three things going on here: potential humanitarian crisis on Europe's doorstep. Italy/Spain/Greece/Malta don't much want to be swamped with Libyan refugees fleeing Gaddafi's genocide. Something must be done. Stung by accusations of inaction over Rwanda, if there's a chance of genocide they'll be on it fast. Too bloody fast. They were awfully quick to start justifying this military action in case it did happen.

Second, vested interests: big business contracts to be had in Libya which has been in isolation for a long time (not just oil). If Gaddafi is dragging his feet, playing hard to get, "Let's give the old bastard a push if he's outlived his usefulness". Strategic and economic interests are a huge factor in all this. But let's not oversimplify things with the oil conspiracy.

Third, our leaders have started to believe their own propaganda. They all got a bit carried away with the giddy rush of North African democratization and thought Libya would follow suit of its own accord. Problem is, they jumped the gun a bit. So what do we do? What worked for Saddam? I know - no-fly zone, a.k.a regime change. US/UK/NATO are the new global policemen. It has somehow become accepted that each week, dozens of civilians are going to be killed in drone strikes, whether in Afghanistan or Pakistan. The howls of protest are deafening only by their absence. But we've got form - it happened in Laos, and again in Cambodia, and we're still rewriting the history over that one.

So once again we see US/UK/NATO missiles heading off for $islamiccountry. I saw it live on TV in the 80s, I've seen it a dozen times since and I'm seeing it again now. The BBC commentator today said "Colonel Gaddafi must be regretting his defiance of the international community now, as Strike Phantom Task Force WTF disperse his troops with their smart weaponry". Bastard nearly jizzed his pants with excitement as he said it.


This is such a good post.

To everyone still crying "Oil!", give it a read, it gives you a chance to be cynical about the Western governments without looking like a tool.
Reply 85
Original post by garethDT
The US government acts on behalf of the multinational oil companies. This coalition are acting as hired henchmen for the oil industry.

You talk about invading Iran like it's an easy thing to do. The first stage of any war nowadays is to win the PR battle at home, they very nearly lost that battle with the WMD debacle with Iraq. You have to hand it to them that this time they've played the media superbly, who would have thought just a couple of months ago that they could bombard an oil rich arab country without provocation and get the public to support it?


Well if you believe that then the US is acting as Henchmen for Chinese French and Angloan oil companies to. US companies have in many cases been blocked from oil auctions in Iran and they have also lost a number of them to.
Original post by Aj12
Libya is the one country that has a proper rebellion we can support. Plus Gadaffi is slightly different to other dictators. Others may fight the rebels in battle win and that will be the end. Very few will claim they go house to house and kill everyone who has opposed him. Some of the Tribes in Libya turned against him its pretty likely he would wipe out these tribes it would be a massacre.


He's no worse then people like Mugabe who starved his own people. Libya isn't the one country in the whole world who have a rebellion we can support! That's a ridiculous thing to say! Tell me why the Libyan rebellion is so different to every other rebellion on the planet which made it impossible for us not to intervene?
Reply 87
Original post by imzir
Read the link below:

http://bybusiness.net/libya-conflict-continues-oil-above-105.html#more-1197

Libya continues to create turbulence in crude oil prices soared. In recent weeks, oil prices on the world’s two main stock stabilized above U.S. $ 105 per barrel.

According to news agency Associated Press, oil prices for the transaction of April in New York trading Monday afternoon local time (Tuesday morning GMT), up U.S. $ 1.02 to U.S. $ 105.44 per barrel. Price even had time to touch U.S. $ 107 per barrel the highest since 26 September 2008.

On the London stock exchange, oil prices fell 93 percent to U.S. $ 115.05 per barrel.

The high price of crude oil, according to the observer, as investors continue to regard the situation in Libya, one of the major crude oil producer in the world. Earlier this week the fight between pro-regime of Muammar Gaddafi’s forces with the rebel militia near the city’s main oil port in Libya.

Since February 15 last upheaval occurred in Libya, thus making the country’s oil exports halted. Thus, market participants warned that the global oil supply levels will continue to pressure for months.

“Oil Prices will continue to move higher until the situation can be controlled,” said Jim Ritterbusch, analyst at Ritterbusch and Associated. The situation in Libya is expected to disrupt the cartel production target of the world leading oil producing countries, OPEC.

“When the situation worsened in North Africa or the Middle East, production levels could fall and we will continue to experience depletion of inventories,” said Erik Kreil, an observer from the U.S. Energy Information Agency (IEA).

According to the IEA, OPEC’s production quota has been targeting its members including Libya by 4.7 million barrels per day. However, when supplies from Libya continues stalled, OPEC output quota will be reduced 32 percent to about 3.2 million per day.

8th March



Libya raised its oil prices early this March. Libya is one of the major crude oil producers in the world. This article was last updated on March 8th. before the invasion

Oh and for people using this PATHETIC ARGUMENT BELOW: Libya is still a major oil producer as the article states be it 15th on the List or 20th - it is more than worthwhile for America to steal the oil from whilst remaining inconspicious. So please dont use that silly argument. Also another reason why America didnt intervene during the Egypt Crisis - didnt have a lot of oil


If you had a brain you'd be dangerous.
Reply 88
Original post by iainthegreat
He's no worse then people like Mugabe who starved his own people. Libya isn't the one country in the whole world who have a rebellion we can support! That's a ridiculous thing to say! Tell me why the Libyan rebellion is so different to every other rebellion on the planet which made it impossible for us not to intervene?


It can be a far more limited intervention. Zimbabwe would require an entire ground invasion. Libya does not.

In plenty of other countries the rebels are as bad as the government they fight. Libya the rebels are normal people.

If we do nothing Gadaffi will massacre every man women and child in Benghazi. He has used planes to bomb not just rebel positions but civilians as well.

The West and the UN is finally intervening to help a country and all people can do is complain that its for oil or yell and scream about why we have not helped every other country. Fact is we cannot afford to go and save the entire world. Just be grateful that for once we are actually doing the right thing and people will be helped.
Reply 89
Original post by Drunk Punx


And no, it shouldn't; you've essentially said (from a slightly twisted viewpoint, admittedly) that we're going to go into Libya purely for oil but use the suffering rebels as an excuse to do so. I find it hard to applaud such motives, personally :colonhash:



I don't think we are going into Libya purely for oil. It can be similarly compared to the interventions in the former Yugoslavia during the 90's - it is in our strategic interests to have a stable state on Europe's borders.
Then you can also have an idealist view that those with the capabilities to do so should stand up for human rights whenever they can. As for Zimbabwe, Congo, Sudan etc etc it isn't within our interests to act, so rightly we don't commit troops/jets to a conflict in which their are no benefits for ourselves.

I re-iterate though - upholding human rights, even on a selective basis, has to be a good thing?
Reply 90
Original post by Aj12
Well if you believe that then the US is acting as Henchmen for Chinese French and Angloan oil companies to.


Not really. The US cannot just prevent China from buying oil, that would be a provocative act of war. What they are interested in is a free market economy in which any company can go along and get an oil contract, naturally a lot of that oil will go to the biggest oil companies like BP, Shell etc. These are multinational companies, they don't see themselves as being from one particular country.

Original post by Aj12
US companies have in many cases been blocked from oil auctions in Iran and they have also lost a number of them to.


Which exactly why every single news item you hear about Iran is sensationalist propaganda about nuclear weapons, islamic extremism and terrorism.
Reply 91
Libya makes less oil then the US, so oil isn't the reason.
Either way, the US don't have good ties with Iran, so they'd be better off 'stealing' their oil (not that they have).
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?


NO! Lybia has tonnes of oil, LOADS! and it was only discovered recently!

so HA
Reply 93
Original post by Limesasquatch
NO! Lybia has tonnes of oil, LOADS! and it was only discovered recently!

so HA


It is miles behind Iran when it comes to proven reserves.
Reply 94
I don't understand. How will the USA gain oil from installing a no-fly zone? No ground troops are going in.

Obama hardly even pushed for the no-fly zone. It was mostly Cameron and Sarkozy.

However, @ the person who said why not go into Iran for oil then - Iran has a highly sophisticated military and invading it would not pay off.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Limesasquatch
NO! Lybia has tonnes of oil, LOADS! and it was only discovered recently!

so HA


So do so many other countries ahead of it.... Saudi Arabia, Iran would be better targets just to get oil tbh
Original post by Aj12
It can be a far more limited intervention. Zimbabwe would require an entire ground invasion. Libya does not.

In plenty of other countries the rebels are as bad as the government they fight. Libya the rebels are normal people.

If we do nothing Gadaffi will massacre every man women and child in Benghazi. He has used planes to bomb not just rebel positions but civilians as well.

The West and the UN is finally intervening to help a country and all people can do is complain that its for oil or yell and scream about why we have not helped every other country. Fact is we cannot afford to go and save the entire world. Just be grateful that for once we are actually doing the right thing and people will be helped.


Wow you've been brainwashed.

Every rebel force starts out as 'normal people', normal people who have grown tired of their government. Granted there are different motivations behind the various rebel forces, some of which we should strongly oppose, but there are plenty of places we could help out. The fact is our media portrays them in a different way.

You talk about money, how much is the Afghan war costing?
Reply 97
Original post by Organ
Unlike Libya; Zimbabwe is not on Europe's border, fairly wide-spread international support, it's fate does not have huge geo-political ramifications, there is no wide-scale rebel movement to support, and there is no clear opportunity to strike. Zimbabwe is irrelevant regards Libya, the ME turmoil is in the present, and given Libya's proximity to Europe a no-fly zone is not that difficult to enforce. I would dread to imagine what would have happened if Gaddafi had gotten his hands on Benghazi - it would have been a bloodbath.

Sometimes an intervention makes sense - like Kosovo, other times it does not.


We had an opportunity to strike, when zimbabwe was about to break out into civil war recently. What is the rebel support movement in Libya specific to? :s-smilie: To not intervene because of the location of a country seems a bit petty. Morgan Tsvangirai had loads of support- he was the main opposition. There was a large movement & his efforts for peace didn't go unnoticed, he was nominated for the nobel peace prize. Zimbabwe was a bloodbath, he was killing people with machine guns, machetes; you name it.
Original post by Smack
Why not? America does not import oil from Libya.

They do have oil companies in Libya.

Original post by Aj12
We are supporting a rebellion in Libya. There is no such rebellion in Zimbabwe.


See above :unimpressed:
Who do the rebels support?
Reply 98
Original post by !nd*v'dual
The UN hasn't intervened in Zimbabwe due to a lack of support for action from many countries in the African Union. Many of which's leaders still regard Mugabe as a hero. (Not to say this is an adequate excuse, but one they're contempt to use nonetheless)

The Arab League supported action in Libya - at least initially.

Because they tend to be corrupt dictators. Why was zimbabwe an african problem, left to the au & sadc, yet Libya required the intervention of the UN. Don't get me wrong, I kinda support the UN in this, I'd just like to completely understand the reasoning behind it.
Original post by amsie/
They do have oil companies in Libya.


Yes but they don't import oil from Libya.

Quick Reply