Its Not About The Oil....Honest

[Xicano]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/28/us-libya-oil-rebels-idUSTRE72R6X620110328

[whoneedstickets]

Not buying the oil argument

If this was about oil, we could have simply backed Ghaddafi, commented on his renunciation of terrorism and WMD following Iraq, made some noise about how the rebels have Al Qaida links and moved on. This is the tactic we'll take if there is any significant uprising in Saudi Arabia.

Backing the rebels actual puts oil production in peril. It just doesn't make any sense.

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. This is linear thinking.& probably doesn't apply

There is an overriding US policy about promoting democracy around the world - in our best interest. The idea is that democratic countries are easier to bargain with, are stable & reliable "trading partners".

[RZM]

9. +1

I don't doubt that if the Saudi regime is in peril (that might be in the cards, but who knows) you accurately describe the international reaction. The 'blood for oil' argument regarding Libya just doesn't stand up to simple scrutiny.

[TorchTheWitch]

10. it isn't so much about production, it's about who gets the oil

and how lucrative the contracts are. The West backed Gaddafi for a long time. We lifted the sanctions on Libya so that we could send our own oil companies in to Libya to profit off its oil just like the European nations were doing. And then Gaddafi wasn't so cooperative anymore. He was interested in cutting China in on the contracts and imposing such high taxes on the oil that our oil companies didn't even really want to do business with Libya anymore. All of the West was saying even before any protesting was going on in Libya that Gaddafi was "uncooperative" and it was becoming "impossible" to do business with him.

Once the internal conflict began the only logical choice was for the West to back the rebels because they already were complaining they could no longer do business with Gaddafi. At first we sat back and watched as the rebels in the beginning were doing rather well on their own and no doubt the West was already sending in representatives to work out new and improved oil contracts much more to the West's liking. But it was taking too long and Gaddafi wasn't leaving voluntarily as had just happened in Egypt. France in particular was very worried about how long it was already taking and came right out and said that if the situation didn't stabilize very soon they would have to dip into their oil reserves... at the start of the uprising all oil company workers had to be pulled out, and oil production dipped to about 50%. The entire economies of France, Britain and Italy in particular was in peril - billions of Gaddafi's oil money was in their banks, oil contracts were in jeopardy, oil production sank like a rock, and Gaddafi was threatening to pull those billions out of their banks also using some of those billions to fund a mercenary army thereby stretching out the conflict for who knows how long. This is why France and Britain were at the forefront of military intervention and immediately blocked access to those billions in their banks... they could not afford to wait anymore as much of their oil needs and billions of Libyan money in their banks absolutely depended on a stable Libya and not one they could afford to wait for. Italy was just as eager but more quiet about it since it was rather embarrassing for them to suddenly back Gaddafi's opposition and so strongly since Gaddafi was more Italy's special friend in Europe than anyone else.

The "no fly zone" that was far more than just a no fly zone and the humanitarian BS excuses were from the outset a regime change decision, and the European countries (specifically France and Britain) weren't even really bothering to try to hide it. Let's not forget that one of the first missiles shot off went into Gaddafi's compound in Tripoli. Once the West got involved militarily on the side of the rebels there will be a quid pro quo as there ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS is... the West will be installing a new leader they'd get REALLY lucrative oil contracts with, the nutter Gaddafi that they could "no longer do business with" would be gone, and everyone would be happy (except perhaps for the Libyan people, but it's not like the West gives a shit about them). And the West gets everything they could God damn dream of by militarily supporting the rebels.

Yeah, it always had everything to do with oil and the production of it is on the low end of scale in terms of what the West wanted from the outset. This was an absolute golden opportunity for the West to get everything they could God damn dream of concerning Libya which had already long since been on their agenda anyway.

[99th_Monkey]

11. ncie post .. thanx. ~nt

[PurityOfEssence]

12. He forced the French in 2009 to get less of what they pumped, with a threat of nationalization

The premise that he was perfectly willing to keep all the oil flowing and do so at acceptable deals is blown out of the water by this.

He told them that, instead of letting them keep 50% of what they produced, they would now just get 27%, and he threatened them with nationalization if they didn't agree. The French Company "Total" hated this. Apologists for this line of thinking have pointed out that he granted a longer lease when doing this, so it wasn't such a horrible thing, but I say this: if he's threatening nationalization whenever he damned well pleases, the what's an extension mean?

http://www.realnewsreporter.com/?p=1862

Here's an article in the Telegraph from January 31st of this year, obtained from Wikileaks:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294570/FRENCH-TOTAL-LED-CONSORTIUMS-ACCEPT-LOWER-PRODUCTION-SHARES-IN-LIBYA.html

The Rebels, when appealing for help, suggested to the Western nations that they would remember people who didn't help them, and when it looked like they had Qaddafi on the run, the French were the first country to recognize them. At that point, they had made their choice, and the rebels HAD to win. Then Qaddafi counter-attacked, and looked like he'd swing it very quickly.

That's when we had to immediately come to their aid.

No, it's not that simple; people hate Qaddafi and have a grudge against him, he's a certified dick and there is sincere concern for civilians and political opponents, but there's a rather clear through-line of influence there, and who knows what else went on behind the scenes? More than anything, those who shriek at any intimation of oil being an issue here are plainly incorrect.

[GeorgeGist]

15. Did you really expect ...

a turd sandwich to make sense?

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. "Oil for Guns!"

Beats "oil for food" by a long shot.

[Ed Suspicious]

2. No... no it's not all about oil...

It's about the military industrial complex and it's ravenous hunger for more business opportunities.

[mrbscott19]

3. Can you say

Supersize?

[Ed Suspicious]

5. Just another feather in fascism's cap.

[RickFromMN]

6. I haven't done the research, but wonder, do the other Muslim countries back Kaddafi or the rebels?

I suspect it is oil.

I wonder if we are doing what we think other Muslim countries want us to do.

I think the President Bush Senior's war with Iraq was "okay" because Kuwait was threatened.
I think the other Muslim countries acquiesced to that war. I think they felt threatened by Iraq.

I'm not sure what the Muslim countries thought about President Bush Junior's Iraq War.

I'm tempted to do google searches to try to answer my questions,
but I have the feeling my search results, being mostly U. S. and U. K. (English speaking), would be biased.

I don't know how to do a google search to get results from Muslim sites. I don't speak the languages.

If someone finds links to prove or disprove my suspicions, it would be interesting to know.

[sad sally]

7. Well, since Qatar stepped right up to help with the oil,

guess they must have some "interest" in Libya. Note second paragraph, "...oil sales where consistent with international law and use the returns to support the people of Libya." Has familiar tones of Iraq's oil.

updated 3/29/2011 2:30:20 PM ET

LONDON — Britain's foreign secretary says Qatar has offered to facilitate the sale of Libyan oil and to use the proceeds to help meet Libyan humanitarian needs.

William Hague said Qatar would "facilitate" the oil sales where consistent with international law and use the returns to support the people of Libya.

Hague did not provide details about who would be supported, how the facilitation process would work, or how Qatar's offer has been received by diplomats. He was speaking Tuesday at the end of an international conference on Libya in London.

Libyan rebels have recaptured some key oil ports and promised to resume exports, but experts say those exports will likely be halted at least for another several months.

[dkf]

8. I don't think that it's about the oil for Obama. He doesn't want it on his conscience...

Except it will be because he is gonna screw it all up.

[inna]

14. And how did you arrive at that conclusion? Honestly curious.

[PurityOfEssence]

13. We hereby unanimously agree that we are entitled to protect this innocent civilian oil

In fact, since we basically control the oil fields and facilities now, we claim salvage rights and a moral imperative to allow these unquestionably noble freedom fighters pay for our services in killing their countrymen with oil.

[Tatiana]

16. If it's a ME, oil-producing country, it's at least *partially* about the oil.

This is only further confirmation, but those of us who don't have our heads stuck in the sand or who don't have our fingers in our ears saying "la la la la most progressive President since FDR! la la la la la la" knew the deal.

That's why Qaddafi has threatened to set the oil fields on fire. And even if he doesn't I'm sure others would just to prevent the U.S. from getting their hands on it. I've been watching footage of the so-called "rebels" and I've seen many thank Britain and France, but I never hear a "thank you, America" for our intervention.