Jump to content

Obama's war for oil


Recommended Posts

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 my understanding the Libyan average income is actually fairly good for the region, although unemployment is particularly high.

 

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?

Why do corruption and invasions matter? The stated goal is to prevent Gaddafi from killing his own civilians, which he most certainly was doing. The fact that the UN vacillates so easily does not make its decisive action here wrong; it merely implies that UN members believed there was no other option. Certainly diplomacy does not work for Gaddafi, since he's been under sanctions and international scorn for years.

 

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.

Right, we're in this for our personal gain, but we got France, England, Spain, Italy, Canada, Qatar, Denmark and the UAE to join us on a whim. That must be why our top military leaders are warning politicians that we should do nothing more than a no-fly zone:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8394442/Libya-It-would-be-unwise-to-directly-target-Col-Gaddafi-Robert-Gates-warns.html

 

And, of course, the Arab League endorsement just seals the deal. The oil-producing nations of the world would clearly endorse an effort to steal oil from their neighbors, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, we're in this for our personal gain, but we got France, England, Spain, Italy, Canada, Qatar, Denmark and the UAE to join us on a whim. That must be why our top military leaders are warning politicians that we should do nothing more than a no-fly zone:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8394442/Libya-It-would-be-unwise-to-directly-target-Col-Gaddafi-Robert-Gates-warns.html

 

Gadhafi's Tripoli compound hit

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42177894/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

 

g-110320-cvr-tripoli-6p.grid-8x2.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did our top military leaders determine that was a flying military compound?

Perhaps I should have noted that the UN resolution also authorizes military action to protect civilians, such as airstrikes on tanks or military command centers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Obama now has his own war for oil. Let' not pretend this is a great humanitarian effort.

Like most political manoeuvrings, this one has several goals, only one of which is "a great humanitarian effort". There is no pretense is that goal is achieved along with the others.

 

Further, I think you've got your partisan blinders on. Your defense of the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq included the overthrow of Hussein for humanitarian purposes, iirc. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is one thing I really do not like about the handling of the Libyan excursion, and that is the passive aggressive stance that the coalition forces appear to be taking. The US plans to hand off the operations "in a few days". As if it to say, they're done, they won't be involved anymore. If someone walked up and punched me in the face, there's no way I would just let them walk away with no ill will. The attacking forces say they want to prevent Gaddafi from attacking civilians, so they established a no fly zone. Yet at the same time they are attacking command and control centers and even military targets not actively engaged in attacking civilians.

 

If they're going to throw this much weight in the ring against gaddafi and still say that they're only doing it preventing civilian deaths instead of outright backing the rebels, then these leaders are kidding themselves. The boldness of their two-faced political agenda is so blatant that it's insulting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is one thing I really do not like about the handling of the Libyan excursion, and that is the passive aggressive stance that the coalition forces appear to be taking. The US plans to hand off the operations "in a few days". As if it to say, they're done, they won't be involved anymore. If someone walked up and punched me in the face, there's no way I would just let them walk away with no ill will. The attacking forces say they want to prevent Gaddafi from attacking civilians, so they established a no fly zone. Yet at the same time they are attacking command and control centers and even military targets not actively engaged in attacking civilians.

 

If they're going to throw this much weight in the ring against gaddafi and still say that they're only doing it preventing civilian deaths instead of outright backing the rebels, then these leaders are kidding themselves. The boldness of their two-faced political agenda is so blatant that it's insulting.

I'm not sure you're using the term, "passive aggressive" right. Passive aggression is like when you don't want to directly express your anger toward someone so you say talk in a hyper-formal tone to them.

 

Who's to say the US or anyone else is going to support the rebels once they find out what their politics really are? It makes sense that the US and their partners are in support of the rebels' democratic right to express their political will, but that doesn't mean they're going to agree with it when they are liberated to do so. It's like when a student says they're afraid to express their opinion in class so you assure them that everyone must respect their opinion and then they say something blatantly offensive or impossible and expect you to validate their point because you assured them that they should be confident to express themselves.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The attacking forces say they want to prevent Gaddafi from attacking civilians, so they established a no fly zone. Yet at the same time they are attacking command and control centers and even military targets not actively engaged in attacking civilians.

One of the reasons you attack command and control centers is to deprive your enemy of the ability to command and control their air defences. If you want to establish and maintain a no fly zone you have to keep your own aircraft safe.

 

NATO defines air defence as "all measures designed to nullify or reduce the effectiveness of hostile air action."[1] They include ground and air based weapon systems, associated sensor systems, command and control arrangements and passive measures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-aircraft_warfare

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bahrain is also firing on its own civilian demonstrators, but there's no call to action against them. Almost forgot: they're the American finger in the eye of the Iranian regime, which wants Bahrain under its own influence. Also, the major U.S. ally in the region, Saudi Arabia, would never tolerate a no-fly-zone over Bahrain, which its own military is helping. So I guess America's self-righteous wrath against oppression doesn't extend as far as interfering with Realpolitik.

 

And then of course there's the illegitimate regime in Ivory Coast which has been resisting outside criticism for a long time now, but that's so far away from anyone's oil or strategic basing interests that it's not worth even thinking about military action to restore democracy there!

 

The amazing thing is that anyone is still naive enough to believe that these interventions occur on the basis of their purported moral motivations. In the early 19th century the European powers colonized Africa to bring it Christianity, and then in the late 19th century to bring it Christianity. Of course we all laugh at those ridiculous disguises for power-grabs from those days, because the excuses are outdated. But today neo-colonism occurs 1) to rescue threatened Americans/Europeans in conflict zones; 2) to protect local civilians; 3) to bring democracy to the local people, and these excuses sound more convincing because they appeal to modern ideologies, but they are still just as false.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bahrain is also firing on its own civilian demonstrators, but there's no call to action against them. Almost forgot: they're the American finger in the eye of the Iranian regime, which wants Bahrain under its own influence. Also, the major U.S. ally in the region, Saudi Arabia, would never tolerate a no-fly-zone over Bahrain, which its own military is helping. So I guess America's self-righteous wrath against oppression doesn't extend as far as interfering with Realpolitik.

I think that's to be expected, but also the scale of the events is not the same. Libya was in all-out civil war, not domestic protest.

 

And then of course there's the illegitimate regime in Ivory Coast which has been resisting outside criticism for a long time now, but that's so far away from anyone's oil or strategic basing interests that it's not worth even thinking about military action to restore democracy there!

 

But today neo-colonism occurs 1) to rescue threatened Americans/Europeans in conflict zones; 2) to protect local civilians; 3) to bring democracy to the local people, and these excuses sound more convincing because they appeal to modern ideologies, but they are still just as false.

What do you propose the true motivation is? I do not see the economic benefit of the current military action.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Daily show on the no fly zone: http://www.thedailys...stitutional-war [/Quote]

ecoli, I know that was meant as satire, but it's the most plausible explanation, I've heard for the entire action...

 

Thread; Now we're being told NATO will be in charge through a committee and the US will no longer be in charge, more double talk. Anyone want to make a bet...? Oh yes, the President is cutting his 5 DAY South American Vacation short, to handle the settled problem, by TWO HOURS...

Link to post
Share on other sites

ecoli, I know that was meant as satire, but it's the most plausible explanation, I've heard for the entire action...

 

Thread; Now we're being told NATO will be in charge through a committee and the US will no longer be in charge, more double talk. Anyone want to make a bet...? Oh yes, the President is cutting his 5 DAY South American Vacation short, to handle the settled problem, by TWO HOURS...

I don't understand this logic of criticizing presidents when they continue with one activity instead of going somewhere else to deal with something different. What can a president do in person that can't be done by phone, internet, etc.?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand this logic of criticizing presidents when they continue with one activity instead of going somewhere else to deal with something different. What can a president do in person that can't be done by phone, internet, etc.? [/Quote]

 

It's called implied priorities lemur, how Governments Leaders and people perceive/judge other National leaders. What was more important, internationally speaking, than heading into a possible third Muslim War, with those consequences or taking his family on sight seeing vacation in SA, a couple press conferences and a few ego building dinner parties. If I'm being told correctly, adding insult in injury, he came back a couple hours early, leaving his family behind to visit the Mayan Ruins, I don't suppose that little additional million dollar plus cost upsets anyone either. If he can do anything on the phone (I disagree), then why the 2 hours early???

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's called implied priorities lemur, how Governments Leaders and people perceive/judge other National leaders. What was more important, internationally speaking, than heading into a possible third Muslim War, with those consequences or taking his family on sight seeing vacation in SA, a couple press conferences and a few ego building dinner parties. If I'm being told correctly, adding insult in injury, he came back a couple hours early, leaving his family behind to visit the Mayan Ruins, I don't suppose that little additional million dollar plus cost upsets anyone either. If he can do anything on the phone (I disagree), then why the 2 hours early???

Sorry, I get so annoyed with this whole symbolic performance game. I wish people would skip all the symbolism and just work at a functional level. The problem with this would be that it would become painfully clear how many "functionaries" don't really do anything functional. Their job is basically acting, and then people argue over the role they're performing to "imply priorities?" Instead of being so cynical about it, maybe I should just ask what a critic like me is to do when we think much if not most of this symbolic nonsense is a waste of time and resources and should be radically reformed? Generally, I find it sufficient to mention that phone calls and other forms of telecommuting are sufficient for a great deal of work, but when someone says that showing up at the office with a tie in a relatively new car is an important "priority implication" that justifies devoting enormous economic resources to it globally, I feel like I have to raise the yellow flag a little higher.

Edited by lemur
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.