Obama's war for oil

[waitforufo]

So Obama now has his own war for oil. Let' not pretend this is a great humanitarian effort. There are plenty of countries with leaders who treat their citizens worse than Gadhafi. You don't see us bombing Yemen, or the Ivory Coast. No oil you can treat you citizen however you like.

 

Sure, Obama has France, the UK and other European countries on board. They need that Libyan oil more than we do. Heck, that's why they didn't think they needed Iraq. They had Libya. Europe and the UK even forgave Libya for Lockerbie for that sweet Libyan oil. Obama even signed a deal to sell Gadhafi arms to keep the oil flowing.

 

Oh, the irony is so sweet.

[Horza2002]

Might I point out that Obama was not the one who put this plan forward at all....it was the British and the French. And it took Obama a hell of a long time to decide what he was actually going to do come the UN vote and for most of it was very relucatant to do anything. As well as that, Obama as made it quiet clear that it is not an American led plan. It was only after the UN made it clear that this was an international endevaour that anything happened at all.

 

And don't forget its not only the European countries hes got on board, there are a lot of the Arab League who are involved as well. The fact that they are working with the west is a sure sign that it not some American plan to steal oil. Do you really think the Arab League would help the Americans steal oil as you so claim?

[lemur]

I think it goes beyond the oil. I think that there is a political will to create some war history as an alternative to the war on terror. Have you noticed how the emphasis has been on forming legitimate coalition and following UN rules, etc.? This is in stark contrast with the endlessly criticized unilateralism and UN circumvention during the war on terror. Before people were critical of a "rogue war machine" and now they're going to have to be critical of a war machine that is legitimated by multilateral global institutions including UN, NATO, and national governments.

Edited March 20, 2011 by lemur

[zapatos]

So Obama now has his own war for oil. Let' not pretend this is a great humanitarian effort. There are plenty of countries with leaders who treat their citizens worse than Gadhafi. You don't see us bombing Yemen, or the Ivory Coast. No oil you can treat you citizen however you like.

 

Sure, Obama has France, the UK and other European countries on board. They need that Libyan oil more than we do. Heck, that's why they didn't think they needed Iraq. They had Libya. Europe and the UK even forgave Libya for Lockerbie for that sweet Libyan oil. Obama even signed a deal to sell Gadhafi arms to keep the oil flowing.

 

Oh, the irony is so sweet.

So you find it ironic that the leader of the United States does what is in the best interest of the United States?

[lemur]

So you find it ironic that the leader of the United States does what is in the best interest of the United States?

Are you aware that absolutely any political perspective can claim that its perspective is in the best interest of the people it claims to represent?

[zapatos]

Are you aware that absolutely any political perspective can claim that its perspective is in the best interest of the people it claims to represent?

I am. It's just not that often that I see someone imply that the president is taking action because it is what is in the best interest of the US (steady supply and price of oil), and then say that they find that ironic.To me it would have been ironic if, for instance, the president did things that interrupted the supply of oil and increased price volatility.

[michel123456]

(...) things that interrupted the supply of oil and increased price volatility.

 

Isn'it exactly what will happen now?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So Obama now has his own war for oil. Let' not pretend this is a great humanitarian effort. There are plenty of countries with leaders who treat their citizens worse than Gadhafi. You don't see us bombing Yemen, or the Ivory Coast. No oil you can treat you citizen however you like.

I'd wait before jumping to that conclusion. The Security Council resolution specifically prohibits a foreign occupation force on the ground:

 

4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory,

http://www.guardian....ncil-resolution

 

The Ivory Coast situation is being dealt with by the African Union, as it should be, and Yemen has not devolved into all-out civil war like Libya has.

 

What I don't understand is: They already sell us their oil. We don't need to invade them to get it. Why does military action make sense?

 

edit: Also, the Arab League asked the UN to impose a no-fly zone and take military action. The Arab League is a bunch of oil exporters. Why would they support Obama's evil plan to get more oil?

[Mr Skeptic]

So Obama now has his own war for oil. Let' not pretend this is a great humanitarian effort. There are plenty of countries with leaders who treat their citizens worse than Gadhafi. You don't see us bombing Yemen, or the Ivory Coast. No oil you can treat you citizen however you like.

 

Sure, Obama has France, the UK and other European countries on board. They need that Libyan oil more than we do. Heck, that's why they didn't think they needed Iraq. They had Libya. Europe and the UK even forgave Libya for Lockerbie for that sweet Libyan oil. Obama even signed a deal to sell Gadhafi arms to keep the oil flowing.

 

Oh, the irony is so sweet.

 

I think the irony is that some people can't see that sometimes it isn't about the oil. Or rather, the problems in Libya are about the oil but not for the reasons you think... look up resource curse. By controlling the oil in his country, Gaddafi does not need to collect taxes and can pretty much ignore his own people (he's not dependent on their cooperation in the form of paying taxes), and can also fund his army nicely. Unlike the war in Iraq, there is 1) very legitimate cause, and 2) international support, including the UN and the Arab League, and 3) there's to be no ground forces so the end result will be the choice of Libyans. You'd think the Arab League would disapprove of this effort if it was to loot the country's oil, since oil is basically all the Arab League is about.

[lemur]

I am. It's just not that often that I see someone imply that the president is taking action because it is what is in the best interest of the US (steady supply and price of oil), and then say that they find that ironic.To me it would have been ironic if, for instance, the president did things that interrupted the supply of oil and increased price volatility.

It was my impression that this is exactly what Bush's regime did, pushing gas to >$4/gallon. I also thought this was in the best interest of the US in light of the oil addiction and free market economics. I.e. the best way to fight an addiction in a free market is to destabilize its supply enough to drive the price as high as possible. This approach can't save people who can afford it, but what it does for people on a budget is to make the choice to use the commodity ever more costly, both in terms of money and in other ways.

 

It became clear to me during the time people started arguing about whether the Bush regime should be filling the strategic reserves (I saw every barrel that went in as a triumph of oil-resistance btw), there was another view of "US best interest" that involved pushing the price of gas down to "ease the burden on people who NEED gas to get to work, etc." In other words, these people didn't/don't see oil-consumption and the economy that is heavily dependent on it as an addiction to be dissuaded but as a natural economic necessity whose affordability needs to be ensured for people to survive economically. So they view rising oil costs as nothing more than anti-productive torture that will never lead to reduced-dependency economics. Ironically, this party used a campaign platform of alternative energy to gain the presidency while pursuing policies of increasing oil supply to reduce costs to consumers.

 

What I don't understand is: They already sell us their oil. We don't need to invade them to get it. Why does military action make sense?

My impression is that the Gaddafi regime maintains tight economic reigns that keep people fairly deprived of (oil) income. This means, I presume, that they can afford to cut production when the price drops. I would assume that if popular governments are put in place that require oil-controlers to fund popular prosperity at higher levels, they will be driven to sell more oil regardless of how low the price goes and this will increase global supply while decreasing prices.

 

It's sort of easy to sum up in the image of achieving popular material prosperity. To give the masses the piles of goods and driving freedom they want, you need lots of cheap gas. To get all that cheap gas, you need to increase supply and lower prices, which basically amounts to creating more abundance. This is how I see it, anyway.

 

 

[John Cuthber]

As far as I can tell, at the moment they pump oil out of the ground in Libya and sell it at the going rate on the international market.

Much of the money goes to Gadaffi and his entourage. A lot of the oil is bought by the US.

If the government in Libya changes ( for whatever reason) the oil will still get pumped and sold.

A lot of that will still be bought by the US.

There is a small difference in that the companies doing the drilling etc might be US owned rather than state owned (i.e. Gadaffi's back pocket owned) but the direct difference in the availability of the oil will be minimal.

 

They might decide to pump more oil and thus make a lot more money (and slightly reduce the world oil price) but OPEC would probably take action to compensate for most of that change.

 

However there's a real possibility that, without their current government, the people there will be a lot happier and might get a better share of the money. (Of course, they might just swap one bad government for another)

[michel123456]

Oil is an obvious factor.

there must be others, only one reason is not sufficient.

 

_impossibility to discuss reliably with Gaddafi

bargaining may fail due to the states' inability to make credible commitments

from wiki article War.

_boosting of European's economy:

A nation's economy is often stimulated by government war-spending. When countries wage war, more weapons, armor, ammunition, and the like are needed to be created and sold to the armies, thus their economies can enter a boom (or war economy) reducing unemployment. A very popular example of this was the United States' ability to overcome the Great Depression with the onset of World War II. Emerging afterwards as one of two superpowers (the other being the USSR).

from the same article.

 

Also France encounters enormous difficulties to sell 'the best aircraft in the world', the Rafale aircraft. "It has also been marketed for export to several countries but has not yet received orders."

And as a friend of mine said sarcastically "war is good for business".

_precipitation of France in order to act in the mediterranean before the U.S.

_next elections in France

_spring time is time of war

_last and least humanitarian concern:

In Why Nations Go to War, by John G. Stoessinger, the author points out that both sides will claim that morality justifies their fight. He also states that the rationale for beginning a war depends on an overly optimistic assessment of the outcome of hostilities (casualties and costs), and on misperceptions of the enemy's intentions.

 

_and others I cannot figure at this moment.

Edited March 20, 2011 by michel123456

[waitforufo]

When was the last time Gadhafi invaded one of his neighbors? What corruption did Gadhafi inflict on the UN similar to "Food for oil." He violates one messily UN resolution and is attacked? I thought the limit was at least 16. In fact, I didn't think even 16 was enough. Obama said yesterday that "I want the American people to know that the use of force is not our first choice.." When did "not our first choice" become the test? I thought war was supposed to be the last possible option. Isn't that the test we have held our past presidents to?

 

Then on the same day of the attack Obama is in Rio telling the Brazilians how he wants Brazil to become a more important energy partner with the US.

 

Yep, war for oil.

 

Really, no one out there but me sees the irony in all of this. A man that promises to extract us from two foreign wars with Muslims gets us involved in a third one. Wow, his domestic policy must really be in the tank.

[zapatos]

Isn'it exactly what will happen now?

Obviously tough to predict the future, but the price of oil dropped immediately after the UN resolution authorizing force to stop Gadhafi's attacks. And the sooner the crisis is resolved, the sooner the oil will be flowing again.

[michel123456]

Obviously tough to predict the future, but the price of oil dropped immediately after the UN resolution authorizing force to stop Gadhafi's attacks. And the sooner the crisis is resolved, the sooner the oil will be flowing again.

 

i read this news article and wondered

 

 

Can Saudi Arabia make up for all of those shortfalls and supply the growing demand for petroleum in China, India and the rest of the emerging world?

 

The Middle East is erupting in violence. And even the mighty hand of OPEC can do nothing to stop it.

 

Oil prices are already rising. Saudi's promise to replace lost petroleum production hasn't calmed the markets. And oil futures are continuing to go up. Could oil traders know something you don't?

[lemur]

However there's a real possibility that, without their current government, the people there will be a lot happier and might get a better share of the money. (Of course, they might just swap one bad government for another)

My impression is that at least some of the Islamic critique of the west has to do with the idea that westerners are too materialistic and otherwise spoiled in a way that is detrimental to their spirituality. Oil wealth creates a lot of temptation for poor people to increase their material consumption and enjoy themselves, but the question is whether this increases their happiness in the long run. I wish western government would acknowledge the belief that materialism is harmful so they wouldn't always be assuming that economically-repressive governance is the same thing as social-political oppression. The solution to unhappiness isn't always to buy more stuff and services.

[michel123456]

(...)The solution to unhappiness isn't always to buy more stuff and services.

 

Maybe, but it is a solution to poverty, hunger, misery. 3 things that surely bring unhappiness.

[lemur]

Maybe, but it is a solution to poverty, hunger, misery. 3 things that surely bring unhappiness.

hunger is cured with @2000 calories per day per capita including sufficient nutrients. People can be well-nourished but still poor. The misery of poverty is usually more subjective, imo. Material consumption provides dummy relief from inner-suffering, the way a pacifier calms a baby. Developing inner-peace without material "pacifiers" can be more difficult but it is possible. In a way, material consolation even makes misery of poverty worse because it makes people that much more vulnerable to material deprivation.

[Marat]

The grand flaw in the system of international law is that resolutions of the UN Security Council, which is really just a big boys club dominated by the five permanent members with veto powers and their arm-twisting power over the other weaker members, can override international law principles, with the result that might now makes right. There is absolutely no legitimacy is ordering a military intervention which will produce more civilian casualties as a by-product in order to save civilian lives from the Libyan regime's legal suppression of an illegal, armed uprising against its authority. All wars cause some civilian casualties; so far the NATO action in Afghanistan has murdered 3000 civilians 'accidentally,' so does this mean that Libya should go to the Security Council and demand an interventiona against NATO forces in Afghanistan to save civilian lives? Lincoln in suppressing the Civil War rebellion of American citizens against his government killed between 600,000 and 1,400,000 Southern civilians, so should Britain have intervened against the Union Army, as some were urging it to do at the time?

 

The whole notion that international law is really based on justice or legality rather than just a fig leaf for raw imperialist power is a joke.

 

Historians a century from now, with their tendency to compress and synthesize and look for grand themes, will describe this era as the Age of 'America's Wars Against Islam,' and lump together the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya as one common effort to subdue Islam in a blind and dumb, unfocused, blunt rage against a War on Terrorism which is unwinnable by the clumsy World War III military apparatus the U.S. has at its disposal.

[michel123456]

hunger is cured with @2000 calories per day per capita including sufficient nutrients. People can be well-nourished but still poor. The misery of poverty is usually more subjective, imo. Material consumption provides dummy relief from inner-suffering, the way a pacifier calms a baby. Developing inner-peace without material "pacifiers" can be more difficult but it is possible. In a way, material consolation even makes misery of poverty worse because it makes people that much more vulnerable to material deprivation.

 

I understand your point. And I disagree.

Material consumption is something anybody wants. From Kings to slaves, from Pope to atheists. It is the easiest way to achieve happiness: accept temptation. The very difficult way is to refuse temptation, to take the road of Buddah. You can't seriously ask for the whole humanity to climb that narrow path by foot, when the highway is open right there.

 

If you whish, show the example, and find happiness hearing the voice of your empty stomach, smelling the boiled rice of your neighbour, while I think of you drinking champagne next to the pool, staring at my brand new mercedes, smelling the barbecue at the terrace of my house after a short trip on my speed-boat to the next island in the Aegean.*

 

-----------------

* i whish it was true.

Edited March 20, 2011 by michel123456

[lemur]

I understand your point. And I disagree.

Material consumption is something anybody wants. From Kings to slaves, from Pope to atheists. It is the easiest way to achieve happiness: accept temptation. The very difficult way is to refuse temptation, to take the road of Buddah. You can't seriously ask for the whole humanity to climb that narrow path by foot, when the highway is open right there.

It's not about asking "for the whole humanity to climb that narrow path by foot, when the highway is open right there." It's about recognizing the fact that there are people who are wise enough to see that there is happiness to be found through detachment from material temptation and that it is legitimate to repress materialism and other forms of addiction at the level of governance. It is cruel that relatively wealthy people (middle class included) view high levels of material consumption as a natural thing available to everyone, when in reality the very fact of how materially intensive those lifestyles are causes them to be necessarily scarce and require more labor than they can reward with the same level of consumption. In other words, they're never going to "open the highway" to everyone so it's really cruel to use the temptation to stimulate people to do the labor that provides access to an elite few. These governments that are eschewing temptation to western materialism are trying to protect people from the misery of relative-poverty amid gratuitous materialism. I agree that people need basic food, shelter, and health but beyond that I think the things that will make them truly happy do not require much money. I'm not saying there is something wrong with people producing material goods and services, but it would be better for them to do so in a way that doesn't relegate other people to states of relative deprivation.

Edited March 20, 2011 by lemur

[jackson33]

I love how everyone is placing blame, cause and course, based on their personal ideological political/social beliefs. Factually, Obama and more importantly the Administration (Gates/Mullen) OPPOSED interfering in Libya. Probably at the request of Hillary Clinton SoS, Susan Rice, the US UN representative, in order to save international face and the agreement of the Arab League to assist, made US assistance nearly unavoidable. Rice was correct, China and Russia by abstaining (could have vetoed), the UN then passed the resolution.

 

Now for the actions; Under International Law, the party/parties involved in the overthrow of a National Leader/Government are then responsible for the stability of that Nation until a new Government is formed and STABLE. I wouldn't be expecting Arab Nations, who are deeply divided by Religious Sects or would I count of European Nations, who are all as financially troubled as the US, to hang around waiting for a stable government. All this includes UN participation, where the same people are involved, since UN Peace keepers have little or no enforcement power. Since Obama and staff are NOW saying actions underway are not to remove Qaddafi, yet attacking his troops, on the ground and protecting the so called "rebels", I'm guessing they think those requirements won't hold true and IMO are wrong.

 

As for Libyan Oil, the main importer is in fact France, the ones that first recognized an unknown entity of the Qaddafi opposition and whose oil is meaningless to the Worlds needs (less that 2%).

 

 

I'm not saying there is something wrong with people producing material goods and services, but it would be better for them to do so in a way that doesn't relegate other people to states of relative deprivation. [/Quote]

 

lemur, in responding to what might be an off topic issue, who is it being deprived of anything, by any of those that achieve. It would seem to me, setting a good example would be the best way demonstrate what trying, means.

[waitforufo]

Well at least some democrats aren’t hypocrites.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html

[zapatos]

Well at least some democrats aren’t hypocrites.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html

That's a relief to know you think so.

 

Rather than viewing this in context you seem to want to use this as an opportunity to criticize democrats in general and Obama in particular (although no one seems particularly anxious to join you). Perhaps a little more debate and a little less rhetoric may garner additional support for your views.

[lemur]

Now for the actions; Under International Law, the party/parties involved in the overthrow of a National Leader/Government are then responsible for the stability of that Nation until a new Government is formed and STABLE. I wouldn't be expecting Arab Nations, who are deeply divided by Religious Sects or would I count of European Nations, who are all as financially troubled as the US, to hang around waiting for a stable government. All this includes UN participation, where the same people are involved, since UN Peace keepers have little or no enforcement power. Since Obama and staff are NOW saying actions underway are not to remove Qaddafi, yet attacking his troops, on the ground and protecting the so called "rebels", I'm guessing they think those requirements won't hold true and IMO are wrong.

I wasn't aware international law was so explicit about responsibility for interim government formation. I believe I read somewhere that Gaddafi said something about staging the whole thing to garner refugee visas so people could leave, but who knows that could have been made up to scare people who are afraid of refugee migration. My concern with Gaddafi the man at this point is that he has been so blackened that his life may be in danger if some angry mob decides to short-circuit his human rights and murder him on the spot. Look what happened with Saddam Hussein when he was turned over to the new Iraqi government. I'm not saying he shouldn't stand trial, but I think the trial should be fair as it should be for any other individual, regardless of public profile.

 

As for Libyan Oil, the main importer is in fact France, the ones that first recognized an unknown entity of the Qaddafi opposition and whose oil is meaningless to the Worlds needs (less that 2%).

It's not the fact of the oil. It's the political precedent that gets set by global powers uniting to support populist/majoritarian control over oil-wealth. It means that people all over the world could rally to take over oil-reserves located within their regional jurisdictions and distribute the proceeds according to popular interest. I would guess OPEC would expand to include emerging oil-republics in an effort to control supply but I don't know what they would do if there was popular rebellion due to economic dissatisfaction. They would probably try to install repressive regimes like Gaddafi's.

 

lemur, in responding to what might be an off topic issue, who is it being deprived of anything, by any of those that achieve. It would seem to me, setting a good example would be the best way demonstrate what trying, means.

To the extent that modern materialism/consumerism functions to promote certain people to higher social status and demote others to lower status, people are being deprived of numerous social privileges due to perceptions about their relative social status. I do actually 'practice what I preach' by trying to avoid materialist consumption that promotes status. I treat people with decency and respect and expect the same whether people I meet are relatively well-off or 'dirt poor.' Still, I believe it would be better for the poor people if the wealthy people would wear the same brands of clothes and walk or ride a bike like the poor people, live among them, and constrain their materialism to roughly the same level as poor and working class people. That way, there would be less elitism and disdain on the basis of social status and people could receive social benefits like friendship, dating, etc. purely on the basis of personality affinities. Granted there are also educational differences that translate into status differences, but there's really no reason poor people can't educate themselves if they are literate and have internet access and the time and interest to study.