- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 7,632
- Reaction score
- 1,204
- Location
- London, UK
- Website
- torgoblog.blogspot.com
UN security council votes to intervene in Libya
- Thread starter Torgo
- Start date
I wonder what we had to give the Chinese and Russians to get them to abstain on the vote?
This whole situation pisses me off. We the USA, have nothing to gain here. We aren't going to benefit from the oil, we are fucked politically, and we're the ones risking OUR blood and OUR treasure to carry the majority of the military burden.
Why isn't Europe heading this whole campaign? They've got air forces large enough to handle it, and they're the ones who actually buy oil from Libya. Then the rebels demanded that we not interfere, and of course when things were going well that was the case. Now that they're crying uncle they all of the sudden want our help.
God damn. The USA should demand exclusivity on the oil in the region in exchange for doing this, and should get it at 50 bucks a barrel.
This whole situation pisses me off. We the USA, have nothing to gain here. We aren't going to benefit from the oil, we are fucked politically, and we're the ones risking OUR blood and OUR treasure to carry the majority of the military burden.
Why isn't Europe heading this whole campaign? They've got air forces large enough to handle it, and they're the ones who actually buy oil from Libya. Then the rebels demanded that we not interfere, and of course when things were going well that was the case. Now that they're crying uncle they all of the sudden want our help.
God damn. The USA should demand exclusivity on the oil in the region in exchange for doing this, and should get it at 50 bucks a barrel.
The oil from Libya is a very rare grade of light sweet crude that is getting harder and harder to find anywhere else in the world. Most remaining grades are either very heavy or very sour, or (eeh gads!) BOTH heavy and sour. Not to mention the stuff that's frcking 5 miles beneath the ocean floor -- a floor which at some points lies 6 miles beneath the ocean surface.
The absolute finest grade of oil in the whole word comes from West Texas and is called "West Texas Intermediate," or WTI for short. It's also caled "Texas Tea." It's so light and sweet that if you dab your finger into it then touch your finger to your tongue it would taste something like molasses or maple syrup -- it's LITERALLY sweet. And it's also so close to perfect in its natural formulation that it's possible to scoop it out of the ground and put it straight into your gas tank. Your engine will run VERY rough, but it WILL run.
The amount of oil in Libya isn't very large, but the quality is outstanding and in the same general ball park as Texas Tea. Therefore it's easy to extract from the ground, and easy to ship via either a tanker or a pipeline, and easy to refine in even the crudest of refineries. Some would say it's worth dying for.
Now I don't personally think that any fucking oil in the world is worth dying for. But after you read my signature, and after you get an eyeful of the ranting and raving and general grandstanding I have been doing for 3 years now about the global oil situation here on these message boards, you might understand why I am pessimistic over our fearless leaders being wise enough to skip over a war for oil. My post-2008 opinion is that the US government would gladly sacrifice our sons, our daughters, our grandmothers, and even lease out to the Chinese government every last square foot of office space in all the shiney white buildings found throughout Washington DC if it meant it would get even one more supertanker of oil for us.
I believe we are heading for a nasty global game of "King of the Mountain" (if you never played that game as a kid, you won't get my analogy).
Our fearless leaders believe we need (at this time) to team up with as many OECD nations as possible while the dwindling supplies of oil slowly peter out. But, just like we learned in The Highliander that "there can be only one," the truth is that we will only temporarilly befriend them in the fight for oil. And then we'll eventualy screw THEM over as well. THAT is why (in my opinion) we're willing to do this, even if that oil doesn't ever see American shores. It's a real fake-out of a chess game. And only the dirtiest player will win in the end.
This resolution was also brought about by the Arab League and 5 of the Arab countries have stated they will participate in a no fly zone with their own air forces.
The US does not want to do this because to many in the Arab world, it looks like The US, is going after the oil. And even though the US does not currently benefit from Libyan oil sales, we HAVE to show the Arab world that oil is not the issue.
My biggest complaint is the rest of Africa where Europe and the US are doing very little while genocide was/is going on everyday. What? No oil or other resources, so no help?
Perhaps Libya can be a turning point where the US does what is right without Oil or other resources as the main reason. Still, it maybe too little to late.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 7,632
- Reaction score
- 1,204
- Location
- London, UK
- Website
- torgoblog.blogspot.com
The Grauniad interprets this to mean no ground troops will be landed; we seem to be talking about air strikes on any of Gaddafi's tanks etc that threaten civilian populations.
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Messages
- 15,903
- Reaction score
- 4,652
- Location
- In a house
- Website
- vincentmorrone.com
I think it's too late in coming for the rebels to regain any meaningful momentum. Gadaffi's gained too much back and any negotiated resolution will benefit Tripoli well more than Benghazi, and will resemble the pre-rebellion status quo too much for anyone's liking.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 5,336
- Reaction score
- 1,446
Nothing. It works out beautifully for China and Russia. There's nothing more amusing than watching the US deplete her military might and go even further into debt for people who may or may not hate her for doing it. And after all, the Arab League is behind it. LOL!! I wonder which Arab League that would that be: the one siding with Egypt that just gained independence from billionaire Mubarak?? OR the one with a bunch of royal billionaires running the show in Saudi Arabia. . .that just unleashed hell in Bahrain??
All well and good to say X wants to intervene, but I'd like to know how they intend to remove the AA emplacements to even enforce a no-fly zone first, let alone actually invade.
And as much as I dislike Qaddafi and his ways, it's a civil war, no other country or group should or does have the right to intervene in that.
ETA: I wouldn't care about honest humanitarian relief (though it's on their heads and their heads alone if they get caught in the crossfire, literally or figuratively).
And as much as I dislike Qaddafi and his ways, it's a civil war, no other country or group should or does have the right to intervene in that.
ETA: I wouldn't care about honest humanitarian relief (though it's on their heads and their heads alone if they get caught in the crossfire, literally or figuratively).
Last edited:
The British press is reporting that Britain has said their aircraft could start enforcement as soon as tonight. I think the issue is what are they going to enforce. A no fly zone or the tanks and rocket launchers heading to the rebel stronghold...
With the US, we likes to send our stealth aircraft in at night to take out anti aircraft and infrastructure. Take out the power grid in Tripoli and Gaddafi loses his command structure...
Edited to add another thought... how long do you think the merc's will last once they are the targets?
UN stands for United Nations, not United States of America. Why the USA should get exclusive oil rights for a UN mission is beyond me.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 16,339
- Reaction score
- 4,110
- Location
- East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
- Website
- www.jlevitt.com
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 20,569
- Reaction score
- 4,814
- Location
- youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
- Website
- www.ifoundaknife.com
It sets a dangerous precedent for any country to interfere with internal strife. I am not saying this is wrong, but where do we stop once this is approved.
What is next? What dissidents will go to the UN and ask for help. How does the UN draw the line on who needs protection and who does not?
What about Iranian dissidents?
What about Tibetan dissidents?
The Ivory Coast,
The Taliban,
Talk about getting into a build up to a global war...
What is next? What dissidents will go to the UN and ask for help. How does the UN draw the line on who needs protection and who does not?
What about Iranian dissidents?
What about Tibetan dissidents?
The Ivory Coast,
The Taliban,
Talk about getting into a build up to a global war...
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 5,336
- Reaction score
- 1,446
new rule:
once you start using tanks, aircraft, and missiles against your civilian population, you lose.
either you get hauled up to the ICC or you get a missile into your bunker.
either way, it's over.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2007
- Messages
- 20,006
- Reaction score
- 5,352
This. Quaddafi is holding his own people hostage against the good behavior of the rest of the world. If the nearby Arab states are going to participate in this and support the no-fly zone with their own air forces, then the UN has nothing to lose by condoning a limited intervention in Libya. Only the Quaddafi regime, the rebels, the Libyan people and, unfortunately, the US public relations efforts in the region have anything to lose.
I'm afraid I called this earlier this week. The Obama administration didn't really have a choice here. The international community already smells blood pooling around the President's feet diplomatically. And, after Obama's banner week of bad in regards to international affairs, it's not surprising that he's changed his tune on this as on so many other issues. It's a shame, I guess--at least for young men and woman already serving in the ME and possibly Quaddafi's government.