Turn on thread page Beta

Proof America after Libyas oil! watch

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    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.
    Spot on.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    Yes but they don't import oil from Libya.
    They'd still profit :teehee:
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by amsie/)
    They'd still profit :teehee:
    At they moment they're not as output has dropped from 1.6 mmbod to 0.4 mmbod.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree that if a country is in need and is asking for military help, we (the West) should help. But do we REALLY know what's going on there? It all seems obscure to a certain extent, at least the media makes it so.

    I mean, sure, the media is telling us about all of Gaddafis horrid crimes against humanity and they show a few people waving guns around. However, once we move in to save and liberate the Libyan people, the media somehow keeps quiet about all the civilian casualties, and killing innocent civilians people becomes alright. Do the Libyan people want our help? Are they prepared to face the possibility of becoming another Iraq? Related video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to3Ymw8L6ZI

    Also, how did a No-Fly zone turn into tactical bombings with civilian casualties overnight?

    On a side note; Oil export =/= proven oil reserves.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by imzir)
    Read the link below:

    http://bybusiness.net/libya-conflict...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
    So what? Oil is a good reason to go to war.
    If you don't think oil is important, you don't understand much about our economy/society.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Mr Galloway get's it spot on again.



    I know he's infamous round here, but this man speaks the truth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by C_B_C)
    So what? Oil is a good reason to go to war.
    If you don't think oil is important, you don't understand much about our economy/society.
    So you're saying that Oil is more valuable than human life? Nice one.

    **** our economy/society if it needs war to survive.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JustMee)

    **** our economy/society if it needs war to survive.
    It always has, man, and probably always will.

    I understand that it seems greedy, selfish and at the highest level of "inconsiderate" possible... but it's more than the truth.

    I would recommend a Frederick Forsyth book called "The Negotiator", the first few chapters give a good political insight to the importance of oil in our society.

    You and I both use a LOT of oil for an average human being (electricity, car rides, bus rides, flights, post, home heating+showers+cooking (natural gas, mainly), our need for the police force, fire brigade and NHS, our need for military defense, and most importantly: ordering take aways), and the consequences are situations such as Libya.
    It doesn't necessarily mean that we're evil.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by C_B_C)
    It always has, man, and probably always will.

    I understand that it seems greedy, selfish and at the highest level of "inconsiderate" possible... but it's more than the truth.

    I would recommend a Frederick Forsyth book called "The Negotiator", the first few chapters give a good political insight to the importance of oil in our society.

    You and I both use a LOT of oil for an average human being (electricity, car rides, bus rides, flights, post, home heating+showers+cooking (natural gas, mainly), our need for the police force, fire brigade and NHS, our need for military defense, and most importantly: ordering take aways), and the consequences are situations such as Libya.
    It doesn't necessarily mean that we're evil.
    I agree that we DO need oil to pretty much have any of our current luxuries. But to say that it's a good reason to go to war and automatically assume that everyone will agree? Frankly, I disagree.

    It would be fair enough if it was put to a vote (and I mean a real vote, where the PEOPLE vote and where the media doesn't feed us biased bull**** while we're at it) and the majority decided to go to war so that we can continue having a comfortable life. It would still be horrendously wrong, but at least we would have a choice.

    But the truth is, we don't even get to know what's really happening, let alone decide, and that's what bothers me.

    How do we preach democracy if we don't even get to democratically decide if we want to preach said democracy?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    At they moment they're not as output has dropped from 1.6 mmbod to 0.4 mmbod.
    atm- libya that is. With gaddafi in power the us, france + uk would have no hope of new bonds with him. With a new leader it'd be fine.
    (Original post by uer23)
    Mr Galloway get's it spot on again.



    I know he's infamous round here, but this man speaks the truth.
    :yy:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Another nation for the USA to destroy.

    Seriously America - go to hell. And take your endless bombers and murdering armies with you.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IGregg)
    What?

    Here is the definition of liberation: the attempt to achieve equal rights or status; "she worked for women's liberation."
    Look at the first three letters of 'Operation Iraqi Liberation'...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What America are doing is wrong, sadly...

    Just a quote from another forum regarding this issue

    1. Why then would all these powerfuly countries go up against a countries with a weak army?
    2. Why are we not getting tweets and such from citizens on the ground like they did in Iran
    and Egypt?
    3. If they are helping rebels to fight against Gaddahfi, then why are we not seeing reporters
    embedded with these soldiers so the world can see what they are doing?
    I believe America have other agenda's in place, not just for oil...
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Its pure ignorance claiming this is for oil. You have no proof no evidence and frankly most of you have no clue.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amsie/)
    So you reckon they went in for humanitarian reasons?
    Yes, this is not the first time such a thing has happened. However people on this forum, such as yourself, lack a basic understanding of the events of the last 20 years.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr.AZ)
    What America are doing is wrong, sadly...

    Just a quote from another forum regarding this issue



    I believe America have other agenda's in place, not just for oil...
    1. Because it's easier than fighting powerful countries?
    2. There are reports that Gadaffi is cutting off telecoms (along with other things like water) and the internet isn't as wide spread in Libya as it is in Egypt. That's all I've got off the top of my head but there is no reason to suggest something sinister.
    3. Embedded with what soldiers? You want reporters flying around in the fighter jets? I don't think that's a brilliant plan - do you?

    This action won't result in the US getting any power in Libya, and in the short term it has increased oil prices. Doesn't really seem like America is benefiting from it to me (especially factoring the cost of all these wars that are supposedly about getting oil which they already have access to anyway).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is such a load of ****, yes we have interests in Libya and we want to protect them. We could have done that far more easily by propping up Gaddaffi (as we have since he joined the coalition of the willing post 9/11). We can help Libyan civilians against sophisticated weapons without an invasion. For example Libya uses planes against civilians and we can shoot them down from the air. Bahrain and Yemen use policemen to kill civilians and you need men on the ground to kill them. UK and US don't want to invade because that's messy. We can help here without invading and that's why we intervene here and not in the other Arab dictatorships. There is no conspiracy. It's not perfect but it makes sense s a country with specific military strengths of which lengthy ground occupations are not one.

    We haven't invaded Libya, we are just helping rebels from the air and sea with superior technology. An invasion in the sense of Iraq is a land invasion with troops on the ground. That's hard, lengthy and messy so not wanted by politicians. This isn't for oil, it is an easy way to help some people with whom we are sympathetic. Its so cool now to jump on the "America = Oil War" bandwagon but please think before spouting this. Its not even like America is running the show. They're giving the reigns to France now they've overseen the use of Tomahawks. France, a country which refused to go to Iraq and baby of the stop the war coalition is backed by the UN and seems (when analysed rationally) to be acting as a former imperial power with some remaining "noblesse oblige" to their former colony. Unfortunate but long may they continue if a developing country benefits.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJkG.1)
    Another nation for the USA to destroy.

    Seriously America - go to hell. And take your endless bombers and murdering armies with you.
    You do realise this is an initiative launched and spearheaded by Europe?

    And judging by your sig, I'm assuming you want America to act against Israel to protect the Palestinian civilians. What's the difference? Just because it's a different country doing the oppression in one of the cases, it's still the same concept.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yituool)
    Yes, this is not the first time such a thing has happened. However people on this forum, such as yourself, lack a basic understanding of the events of the last 20 years.
    You're not making any sense. I don't think I do.
    But I don't think that we know what's going on tbh.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amsie/)
    You're not making any sense. I don't think I do.
    But I don't think that we know what's going on tbh.
    You seem to be unaware that the West has intervened in conflicts in order to uphold human rights numerous times before, meaning it's not at all surprising the same thing is happening in Libya. In the past 20 years we've seen such actions in areas such as Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Rwanda, East Timor and Haiti.

    Seriously, you'd have to be downright mentally ill to believe that the West's involvement in Libya is some kind of oil heist conspiracy.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 22, 2011
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.