• Iran accuses the West of - Shock, horror - Trying to get Libyan Oil
    45 replies, posted
The same thing UN is doing... not sending in forces to help out, only passing resolutions and have the nations take care of it.
i'd prefer they pass resolutions, beause un peacekeepers are fucking useless
[QUOTE=Atokniro;28706424]Hasn't the US been really quiet about the shit in Libya? I only remember hearing about the UK doing anything.[/QUOTE] Yes yes, we've been quietly firing 100s of tomahawk missiles on them.
[QUOTE=Atokniro;28706424]Hasn't the US been really quiet about the shit in Libya? I only remember hearing about the UK doing anything.[/QUOTE] Uh, no. They launched a collective 110 rockets into Libya. Wouldn't really call that quiet.
Somehow I doubt the West would be spending this much money intertvening in some place that didn't have any oil to speak of. African warlords slaughter their own people all the time and the UN doesn't do shit.
[QUOTE=Contag;28706602]Well, you can bet your ass that the United States (and all other nations intervening) care far more due to the natural resources of Libya. No one gave a fuck about Rwanda.[/QUOTE] So if/when the ownership of said oil fields doesn't change hands and the contracts don't change after the job is done, where will you be? Little known fact; the U.S. didn't gain a single oil field during or after the invasion of Iraq. Not a single contract pertaining to that oil changed; China owned and still owns the majority of the rights. The U.S. didn't even get a bargain for being the occupying force.
The US launched 119 Tomahawks into Libya, what do you guys mean the US isn't doing anything? Also, B-2 bombers are hitting targets.
lmao, what are they going to do, scoop it up in buckets hanging from the F-22s?
[QUOTE=animephreak135;28712166]So if/when the ownership of said oil fields doesn't change hands and the contracts don't change after the job is done, where will you be? Little known fact; the U.S. didn't gain a single oil field during or after the invasion of Iraq. Not a single contract pertaining to that oil changed; China owned and still owns the majority of the rights. The U.S. didn't even get a bargain for being the occupying force.[/QUOTE] You mean other than the range of no-bid contracts awarded in 08 that had be taken away because it was too blatant. [editline]21st March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Turnips5;28712208]lmao, what are they going to do, scoop it up in buckets hanging from the F-22s?[/QUOTE] I love that image. But opening up the country, and transforming it into a liberal democracy, means that the vast opportunities for wealth generation will open to the world. I'm not making a judgment on whether intervention in order to extract natural resources is a bad thing, only as an indicator as to why Libya, as opposed to say, Rwanda, receives military aid whilst other countries do not.
[QUOTE=Nahyan;28708788]The fact is, no one is doing this out of humanitarianism, that is just propaganda. The UN did jack shit for lot of other worse conflicts, like Darfur, and only pick favorites when it comes to intervention. Libya's oil goes to Europe, and speculators in the US will continue to jack up gas prices unless the war ends. They are making a business decision. And the fact is, this is a form of neocolonilasm.[/QUOTE] Yes, but how can these nations then have an assurance that the oil will stay safe if the rebels take over? Personally, I think many of the reasons for the failures of the UN are its ridiculous bureaucracy, lack of standing army and international backlash that stops them from doing a lot. I suggest you read up on Roméo Dallaire.
Alright, I'm getting sick of this whole 'OMG U STARTED WARS FER OIL' thing. First, no, we haven't. We didn't do it in Iraq, we didn't do it in Afghanistan, and we aren't doing it now. Second, so what the hell if we were? People have been warring over resources since the beginning of organized hierarchical structures within societies. It's only become uncommon in the past hundred years or so.
Don't try to justify it to your populace as being humanitarian. International politics is only ever guided by self interest, don't be fucking naive and delude yourself that it's any other way. [editline]21st March 2011[/editline] Energy security is immensely important in the 21st century - it's the make or break of superpowers. Why do you think Russia and China are eager to secure themselves some oil?
[QUOTE=Contag;28712406]You mean other than the range of no-bid contracts awarded in 08 that had be taken away because it was too blatant.[/QUOTE] Too blatant? I know exactly what you're talking about, you're referring to the [b]original[/b] four oil contracts that Shell, BP, Total, and Exxon had with the Iraq Petroleum Company. When Saddam rose to power several decades ago, he did away with those contracts instantly. After Saddam's capture, those oil companies came back in and said "Hey, Iraq, we want to renew those very same contracts with you." The Central Bank of Iraq agreed; they are in fact in massive debt to China, and looking for any way to pay off that debt. You're twisting the wording of little news stories about Iraq/oil that you googled and skimmed over in a 10 second period to make it look like some sort of command and conquer: oil wars scenario. Iraq's government has been undergoing a massive campaign to jumpstart their economy, and renewing profitable oil contracts that their ex-dictator banished is one way of doing that. If anything, they're using western powers to gain power, not the other way around.
I never said that the invasion of Iraq for oil wasn't mutually beneficial? [editline]21st March 2011[/editline] As I said before, a liberal democracy means more oil, and thus more wealth, for [I]everyone[/I]! But to deny that energy security isn't a key factor in geopolitics, then that's fucking stupid. I make [I]no[/I] value judgments in the study of international relations, because there is no overarching leviathan to dictate the behaviour of different states.
[QUOTE=Contag;28714476]I never said that the invasion of Iraq for oil wasn't mutually beneficial? [editline]21st March 2011[/editline] As I said before, a liberal democracy means more oil, and thus more wealth, for [I]everyone[/I]! But to deny that energy security isn't a key factor in geopolitics, then that's fucking stupid. I make [I]no[/I] value judgments in the study of international relations, because there is no overarching leviathan to dictate the behaviour of different states.[/QUOTE] Alright, so we've found a common ground here. I completely agree that a country's resources can play a large role in overall international politics, perhaps even in the case of Libya. An important aspect that sets this event apart from Rwanda is the social media situation, and how it has impacted and subsequently put more pressure on the international community. It's one thing to hear about a massacre, and another thing to have those victims posting first hand videos on media sites like Reddit for everyone to see. That being said, it's my belief that Libya's resources have played a role in the international community's intervention, but just one of many other important roles.
[QUOTE=Mr. Sun;28706563]You have no idea man. I live on the same base that sent the planes in to attack Libya the first time. We are sending a shit ton of planes from bases all across Europe. I think the US is just letting England and France take the "credit" since the US already has a bad rap in the Middle East. At least thats what the officers are saying.[/QUOTE] The US has bad rep everywhere no suprises there.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.