• Was the Nato intervention of Libya to free the people? Or to free the oil?
    46 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Knuffelbeer;32890213]Another war started and funded by US when will this ever end?[/QUOTE] i don't know why people think that most of the usa's oil comes from places like libya fun fact guys: america's biggest oil imports come from the unstable and violent nation of [B]C[/B][highlight]A[/highlight][B]N[/B][highlight]A[/highlight][B]D[/B][highlight]A[/highlight] [img]http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/nonrenewable/images/exhibit4-21.png[/img] libya isn't even on the chart here, that's how irrelevant it is [editline]21st October 2011[/editline] even more facts coming at you here - [B]only 7% of the EU's oil comes from libya in total[/B] losing libya would barely dent their economy - the real cause for the military action was the massive amount of human rights violations that gadhaffi's regime was commiting [editline]21st October 2011[/editline] not only that, you also have to keep in mind that NATO countries spent in excess of [B]$1 BILLION USD[/B] on libya [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#Costs[/url] do you really think that they would spend that much on a country that irrelevant in the oil market?
[QUOTE=Mon;32899525]i don't know why people in the think that most of the usa's oil comes from places like libya fun fact guys: america's biggest oil imports come from the unstable and violent nation of [B]C[/B][highlight]A[/highlight][B]N[/B][highlight]A[/highlight][B]D[/B][highlight]A[/highlight] [img]http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/nonrenewable/images/exhibit4-21.png[/img] libya isn't even on the chart here, that's how irrelevant it is [editline]21st October 2011[/editline] even more facts coming at you here - [B]only 7% of the EU's oil comes from libya in total[/B] losing libya would barely dent the eu's economy - the real cause for the military action was the massive amount of human rights violations that gadhaffi's regime was commiting [editline]21st October 2011[/editline] not only that, you also have to keep in mind that NATO countries spent in excess of [B]$1 BILLION USD[/B] on libya [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#Costs[/url] do you really think that NATO would spend that much on a country that irrelevant in the oil market?[/QUOTE] You just won the game.
[QUOTE=Mon;32899525]i don't know why people in the think that most of the usa's oil comes from places like libya fun fact guys: america's biggest oil imports come from the unstable and violent nation of [B]C[/B][highlight]A[/highlight][B]N[/B][highlight]A[/highlight][B]D[/B][highlight]A[/highlight] [img]http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/nonrenewable/images/exhibit4-21.png[/img] libya isn't even on the chart here, that's how irrelevant it is [editline]21st October 2011[/editline] even more facts coming at you here - [B]only 7% of the EU's oil comes from libya in total[/B] losing libya would barely dent their economy - the real cause for the military action was the massive amount of human rights violations that gadhaffi's regime was commiting [editline]21st October 2011[/editline] not only that, you also have to keep in mind that NATO countries spent in excess of [B]$1 BILLION USD[/B] on libya [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#Costs[/url] do you really think that they would spend that much on a country that irrelevant in the oil market?[/QUOTE] brb mobilizing battle tanks
[QUOTE=Mon;32899525]i don't know why people in the think that most of the usa's oil comes from places like libya fun fact guys: america's biggest oil imports come from the unstable and violent nation of [B]C[/B][highlight]A[/highlight][B]N[/B][highlight]A[/highlight][B]D[/B][highlight]A[/highlight][/QUOTE] Exactly. Anyone who claims our actions in the middle east are for Oil, literally have no fucking clue what they're talking about. It's much easier to import oil from countries that aren't war-torn hellholes full of anti-american insurgents. We call them, you know, "allies".
6 of one, half a dozen of the other. The economic stability of the country will have been considered, as will it's oil, but Libya was already a major oil supplier so actually they would have benefitted equally from Gadaffi remaining in power. However, supporting the NTC did carry the possibility of being able to negotiate more favourable terms. That, and there was a popular outcry in the NATO nations to assist the rebels, so part of it will have been altruism (Bowing to the will of the people). And, yeah, as people have pointed out the US gets most of it's Oil from Canada, but the US is not the only nation that intervened. A lot of the European nations recieved Libyan oil as well, not a huge percentage, but still significant. That said, even then, I will maintain that it was mainly altruistic.
[QUOTE=Mon;32899525]i don't know why people in the think that most of the usa's oil comes from places like libya fun fact guys: america's biggest oil imports come from the unstable and violent nation of [B]C[/B][highlight]A[/highlight][B]N[/B][highlight]A[/highlight][B]D[/B][highlight]A[/highlight] [img]http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/nonrenewable/images/exhibit4-21.png[/img] libya isn't even on the chart here, that's how irrelevant it is [editline]21st October 2011[/editline] even more facts coming at you here - [B]only 7% of the EU's oil comes from libya in total[/B] losing libya would barely dent their economy - the real cause for the military action was the massive amount of human rights violations that gadhaffi's regime was commiting [editline]21st October 2011[/editline] not only that, you also have to keep in mind that NATO countries spent in excess of [B]$1 BILLION USD[/B] on libya [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#Costs[/url] do you really think that they would spend that much on a country that irrelevant in the oil market? [/QUOTE] Libya has the 7th largest known oil reserves globally (8th if you include the oil sands in Canada). They're also a member of OPEC which gives them influence in the organisation that controls 77.2% of global known oil reserves (70% with oil sands included). They are far from irreverent. [url=http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2011/STAGING/local_assets/pdf/oil_section_2011.pdf]Source figures.[/url]
Oil is the biggest scape-goat reason that those who can't seem to wrap their heads around the concept that NATO, the US or the EU, are actually doing the right thing because it was necessary. I won't deny that there may be other political motivations behind any intervention in a foreign country's affairs but to say it's for oil is the largest cliche in modern warfare. It's getting pretty old now.
[QUOTE=Jim_Riley;32907856]Oil is the biggest scape-goat reason that those who can't seem to wrap their heads around the concept that NATO, the US or the EU, are actually doing the right thing because it was necessary. I won't deny that there may be other political motivations behind any intervention in a foreign country's affairs but to say it's for oil is the largest cliche in modern warfare. It's getting pretty old now.[/QUOTE] There are many other places that need intervention but because they have no oil no one gives a shit.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;32900230]6 of one, half a dozen of the other. The economic stability of the country will have been considered, as will it's oil, but Libya was already a major oil supplier so actually they would have benefitted equally from Gadaffi remaining in power. However, supporting the NTC did carry the possibility of being able to negotiate more favourable terms. That, and there was a popular outcry in the NATO nations to assist the rebels, so part of it will have been altruism (Bowing to the will of the people). And, yeah, as people have pointed out the US gets most of it's Oil from Canada, but the US is not the only nation that intervened. A lot of the European nations recieved Libyan oil as well, not a huge percentage, but still significant. That said, even then, I will maintain that it was mainly altruistic.[/QUOTE] Libya is by no means a 'major oil supplier'. As you see on that graph Mon posted, it's not even 1% on the US's radar, and only 7% on the EU's radar. That claim has no basis.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32910336]Libya is by no means a 'major oil supplier'. As you see on that graph Mon posted, it's not even 1% on the US's radar, and only 7% on the EU's radar. That claim has no basis.[/QUOTE] I'd consider a country that produced 2% of the worlds oil (11th highest, 1,659,000 barrels/day) and provided 10.71% of EU oil imports (3rd highest, 1,104,000 barrels/day) in 2010 a 'major oil supplier'. [url=http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2011/STAGING/local_assets/pdf/oil_section_2011.pdf]Source world.[/url] [url=http://ec.europa.eu/energy/observatory/oil/doc/import/coi/eu-coi-from-extra-eu-2010-01-12.pdf]Source EU.[/url]
[QUOTE=flyschy;32912125]I'd consider a country that produced 2% of the worlds oil (11th highest, 1,659,000 barrels/day) and provided 10.71% of EU oil imports (3rd highest, 1,104,000 barrels/day) in 2010 a 'major oil supplier'. [url=http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2011/STAGING/local_assets/pdf/oil_section_2011.pdf]Source world.[/url] [url=http://ec.europa.eu/energy/observatory/oil/doc/import/coi/eu-coi-from-extra-eu-2010-01-12.pdf]Source EU.[/url][/QUOTE] You're confusing 'major oil supplier' and 'major oil producer'. They're not one in the same.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32910336]Libya is by no means a 'major oil supplier'. As you see on that graph Mon posted, it's not even 1% on the US's radar, and only 7% on the EU's radar. That claim has no basis.[/QUOTE] 7% from such a country is a damn lot actually.
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;32913404]7% from such a country is a damn lot actually.[/QUOTE] when libya stopped shipping oil to the eu, did you notice any noticeably severe increase in gas prices?
[QUOTE=Mon;32913470]when libya stopped shipping oil to the eu, did you notice any noticeably severe increase in gas prices?[/QUOTE]I notice increase in gas price all the time. It's rising and rising and rising. Soon you will need to bring gold bars to fuel your car.
[QUOTE=Mon;32913470]when libya stopped shipping oil to the eu, did you notice any noticeably severe increase in gas prices?[/QUOTE] Yes prices went up. [IMG]http://i51.tinypic.com/14mszlx.jpg[/IMG] [quote]For instance, the United States imported only around 0.1 Mb/d of oil from Libya in 2010. (For context, the U.S. consumed about 19.2 Mb/d in 2010.) Most of Libya’s crude supply went to Europe. But when unrest shut down Libya’s exports in February 2011, global prices rose, including prices for oil imported into the United States from elsewhere and oil produce domestically. Global supply was reduced and European refiners had to look to other oil sources, bidding up those oil prices to secure substitute supplies.[/quote] [url=http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41765.pdf]Source.[/url] [QUOTE=Megafanx13;32912743]You're confusing 'major oil supplier' and 'major oil producer'. They're not one in the same.[/QUOTE] I'd consider a country that exported the third highest amount of crude oil to Europe in 2010 (behind Russia and Norway) a 'major oil supplier'. [IMG]http://i53.tinypic.com/10hlg29.png[/IMG] 11th biggest exporter of oil in 2010 overall from this graph. Again 'major oil supplier'. [url=http://www.piie.com/publications/pb/pb11-10.pdf]Source.[/url]
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;32908033]There are many other places that need intervention but because they have no oil no one gives a shit.[/QUOTE] Until there's a noticeable drop in oil prices at the pump due to all the oil the US seemingly intervenes and/or invades all these middle eastern countries for, I'm going to take that as nothing but fallacy.
I like to think that there is a resounding message in the freeing of Libya: Whether this was for the freeing of the people or the freeing of the oil, there [B]WILL[/B] be resource wars. That is almost a guarantee. You can be as optimistic as you want, but even if the civil grid goes renewable, we will still need oil to create fuel for our trucks, tanks, jets, ships, and all other conventional and non-conventional military vehicles. Supply is at the heart of any military, and fuel is at the heart of that. Whether we like it or not, as long as two or more major military powers exist, we cannot hope for a world where there isn't at least extreme tension over the last few supplies of sour and sweet crude. Think about it for a second. You have a single squadron of fighter jets. That means a range of 12-24 aircraft. They run off of, of course, jet fuel. Jet fuel is made out of extreme thoroughly-refined oil, is it not? Now, multiply that squadron by two, which makes what is called a group, which is formally made up of two to four squadrons. We're up to around 384 aircraft, at most. Two or more groups form what is called a wing. A wing can contain up to around 768 aircraft. The United States Air Force [B]ALONE[/B] has more than 120 active wings of aircraft, ranging from fighters to strategic bombers to refuel and supply crafts. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a single service of a nation that has active aircraft in each and every military branch. Now, take those numbers, and think about how many aircraft the Chinese, the Russians, and most of the European Union have. The amount of fuel that the United States military consumes alone is [B]MIND-BLOWING[/B], and that's not even accounting for the amount of fuel consumed during war-time operations. Do people honestly think that we shouldn't be acting out of our own self interest? I realize that the idea is about as horrible as it sounds, but it's a matter of self-preservation. I can't believe that I'm finding myself partially justifying going after oil, but with all that number crunching, I'm not even taking into account major industrial vehicle fleets, such as shipping, freight movements, the rail industry, or construction equipment. Do you guys understand how long it would take to convert all of that over to renewable energy? The more and more I look at the numbers, and the more and more I realize how absolutely inevitable conflict over oil is. It's a simple fact, and anything else is fallacy. Our military and industrial complexes as a whole depend on it too much, and we, nor the Chinese, or the Russians, or the Europeans, or any nation on Earth have the money to actually change that in their current states. Now, all of that was about simple fuel-consumption. What about the amount of plastic used by the average consumer? It baffles me that we haven't completely drained the planet of oil dry already, and the numbers are beyond what I can comprehend at the moment, seeing as it's around two in the morning. The laptop that I'm typing on is made of petroleum products, and the chair that I'm sitting in is made of petroleum, the television sitting across from me is made of petroleum products, and most of the things in my room, hall, building, and university are made of petroleum plastics. I like to think that I view the world through the eyes of a pragmatist, and, don't get me wrong, I wish to champion the ways of renewable resources as much as anyone! It just pisses me off to an incredible extent when we have these idiots who chase us around and cry foul when we attempt to prevent the inevitable, while they think that they are making a difference by driving a Prius and drinking water from the tap. Little do they know that the products that go into making anything they're using that's "green" has in fact been used out of materials that are far from [B]GREEN[/B]. This idiocy has to [B]STOP[/B], we need to straighten the hell up, and [B]WE NEED TO GET SERIOUS[/B] We have a goddamned crisis on our hands that, if we're not careful, will blow up in our faces in a way far more destructive and spectacular than anything we've ever seen, in the history of humanity, and yet we have politicians, generals, and citizens running around with their heads up their collective asses, speculating or not "whether it's worth it". [B]YOU'RE DAMNED RIGHT IT'S WORTH IT, AND IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE, YOU'RE DAMNING US ALL![/B] /rant. Here's to the insanity of the world, folks. That's my rant of the month. Hope you enjoyed it. [editline]23rd October 2011[/editline] My God, I didn't realize how long that was until I submitted it. Ye Gods.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.