The Truth About Libya: It's Another Oil Grab

The narrative from CNN, MSNBC and Fox News is pretty familiar: Virtuous US / UN / NATO Intervenes to Save Oppressed People from Mad Dictator!

But what would you expect from the liars who wrote the false "WMD narrative" for the Iraq war?

For the truth, look at these two articles:

Libya: The Oil Factor

This establishes the real motive for the militarily-backed regime change currently underway in Libya. It seems that Gadaffi sealed his fate when he suggested nationalizing the assets of foreign oil companies in Libya because, under lucrative production sharing agreements, they were giving Libya little in return for access to the country's oil.

A CIA commander for the Libyan Rebels

This introduces us to the likely leader of the puppet government that's waiting in the wings. "Rebel leader" Khalifa Hifter has spent twenty years in Virginia---a few miles away from the CIA headquarters---preparing for his role as "people's leader". :roll:

Yes, because it makes more sense to back losing rebels than a dictator to secure oil. :roll:

Ok so? It's pretty obvious both Iraq wars and now libya were nothing more than oil grabs. You'd be naive to think that governments actually step into wars because it is the right thing to do. Governments mask resource grabs as a war in the name of justice and freedom all the time because it sounds better to the populance than "lol, we're just here for teh oil, u mad?".

Nothing wrong with that though.

And whats new? If you have oil on your land and pose a threat to the US getting a piece of it then you will eventually be in trouble.

To be honest I actually don't have a problem with this. It might not be the socially noble and altruistic thing to do but we live in the real world. Oil is arguable the most valuable resource and its in the US's best interest to get as much as we can. If we have to lie to the idealists in the process by telling them we are doing it to fight for justice then so be it.

Ok so? It's pretty obvious both Iraq wars and now libya were nothing more than oil grabs. You'd be naive to think that governments actually step into wars because it is the right thing to do. Governments mask resource grabs as a war in the name of justice and freedom all the time because it sounds better to the populance than "lol, we're just here for teh oil, u mad?".

Nothing wrong with that though.

Aku101

So why did the U.S. intervene in the Balkans in the 90's?

Because that somehow makes sense...

Yes, because it makes more sense to back losing rebels than a dictator to secure oil. :roll:

coolbeans90

Yes, because backing an oppressive dictator publicly is not political suicide :roll:

The narrative from CNN, MSNBC and Fox News is pretty familiar: Virtuous US / UN / NATO Intervenes to Save Oppressed People from Mad Dictator!

But what would you expect from the liars who wrote the false "WMD narrative" for the Iraq war?

For the truth, look at these two articles:

Libya: The Oil Factor

This establishes the real motive for the militarily-backed regime change currently underway in Libya. It seems that Gadaffi sealed his fate when he suggested nationalizing the assets of foreign oil companies in Libya because, under lucrative production sharing agreements, they were giving Libya little in return for access to the country's oil.

A CIA commander for the Libyan Rebels

This introduces us to the likely leader of the puppet government that's waiting in the wings. "Rebel leader" Khalifa Hifter has spent twenty years in Virginia---a few miles away from the CIA headquarters---preparing for his role as "people's leader". :roll:

Stesilaus

lol... Just... lol

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Yes, because it makes more sense to back losing rebels than a dictator to secure oil. :roll:

Aku101

Yes, because backing an oppressive dictator publicly is not political suicide :roll:

We have allowed him to rule as an oppressive dictator for four decades... :roll:

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Yes, because it makes more sense to back losing rebels than a dictator to secure oil. :roll:

Aku101

Yes, because backing an oppressive dictator publicly is not political suicide :roll:

Exactly! It's as if the rebels were losing to a superior military when the west became involve. Consequently, non-intervention clearly wouldn't have ended in Gaddafi's favor.

[QUOTE="Aku101"]

Ok so? It's pretty obvious both Iraq wars and now libya were nothing more than oil grabs. You'd be naive to think that governments actually step into wars because it is the right thing to do. Governments mask resource grabs as a war in the name of justice and freedom all the time because it sounds better to the populance than "lol, we're just here for teh oil, u mad?".

Nothing wrong with that though.

-Sun_Tzu-

So why did the U.S. intervene in the Balkans in the 90's?

Excuse to get coal and to set up a military base in eastern europe.

And whats new? If you have oil on your land and pose a threat to the US getting a piece of it then you will eventually be in trouble.

To be honest I actually don't have a problem with this. It might not be the socially noble and altruistic thing to do but we live in the real world. Oil is arguable the most valuable resource and its in the US's best interest to get as much as it can.Diablo-B

Uh, well ... at least you're prepared to be forthright about your support for U.S. imperialism.

Whatever you do, don't ever run for office in the U.S.

You're simply not deceitful enough to win that game.

:?

If the US wanted oil that much, why wouldn't it invade Saudi Arabia?

[QUOTE="Aku101"]

Ok so? It's pretty obvious both Iraq wars and now libya were nothing more than oil grabs. You'd be naive to think that governments actually step into wars because it is the right thing to do. Governments mask resource grabs as a war in the name of justice and freedom all the time because it sounds better to the populance than "lol, we're just here for teh oil, u mad?".

Nothing wrong with that though.

-Sun_Tzu-

So why did the U.S. intervene in the Balkans in the 90's?

If the US wanted oil that much, why wouldn't it invade Saudi Arabia?

GabuEx

[QUOTE="Aku101"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Yes, because it makes more sense to back losing rebels than a dictator to secure oil. :roll:

Buttons1990

Yes, because backing an oppressive dictator publicly is not political suicide :roll:

We have allowed him to rule as an oppressive dictator for four decades... :roll:

Ok, and there's no rebellion to back up back then as an excuse to take him out. It would have ended up as another iraq. Think next time please.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

If the US wanted oil that much, why wouldn't it invade Saudi Arabia?

TheArGaia

No, not really.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Yes, because it makes more sense to back losing rebels than a dictator to secure oil. :roll:

Aku101

Yes, because backing an oppressive dictator publicly is not political suicide :roll:

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

If the US wanted oil that much, why wouldn't it invade Saudi Arabia?

TheArGaia

Weapons of mass destruction possessed by a regime linked to Al-Qaeda?

[QUOTE="Aku101"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Yes, because it makes more sense to back losing rebels than a dictator to secure oil. :roll:

coolbeans90

Yes, because backing an oppressive dictator publicly is not political suicide :roll:

Exactly! It's as if the rebels were losing to a superior military when the west became involve. Consequently, non-intervention clearly wouldn't have ended in Gaddafi's favor.

Rebels were on the verge of losing, west intervenes no-fly zone gg for gadahfi, NATO cheers as they get new oil supply and pacify populace because they stopped an evil dictator which means more votes next election!

[QUOTE="TheArGaia"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

If the US wanted oil that much, why wouldn't it invade Saudi Arabia?

coolbeans90

Weapons of mass destruction possessed by a regime linked to Al-Qaeda?

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Aku101"]

Yes, because backing an oppressive dictator publicly is not political suicide :roll:

Aku101

Exactly! It's as if the rebels were losing to a superior military when the west became involve. Consequently, non-intervention clearly wouldn't have ended in Gaddafi's favor.

Rebels were on the verge of losing, west intervenes no-fly zone gg for gadahfi, NATO cheers as they get new oil supply and pacify populace because they stopped an evil dictator which means more votes next election!

According to some people, EVERY SINGLE WAR is about oil. Nothing you can say can change that.

Rather than waste my time posting a rebuttal of why the situation in Libya has nothing to do with the little oil they have (since it'll be shot down due to the anti-military, "US is tha evilz!" nature of OT), I'll just leave you with this: Everybody in the world needs oil. I'm not saying that we are in Libya for oil but even if we were it makes sense to make sure the world's oil supply is somewhat secure. Otherwise, how are you going to drive to work if all of the world's oil is controlled by dictators overseas who don't like us?

But once again, it's not about oil. It's cheaper to just buy it outright than to spend billions to invade a country just to try and figure a way to sneak the oil back to the US.

[QUOTE="Aku101"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Yes, because it makes more sense to back losing rebels than a dictator to secure oil. :roll:

l4dak47

Yes, because backing an oppressive dictator publicly is not political suicide :roll:

2% of the world oil supply isn't alot? Libya is the largest producer the easiest refinable oil in the world, therefore production costs decrease all around for NATO. Also with egypt in political turmoil, US needs a strong ally in the middle-east to go w/ israel.

[QUOTE="TheArGaia"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

If the US wanted oil that much, why wouldn't it invade Saudi Arabia?

coolbeans90

Weapons of mass destruction possessed by a regime linked to Al-Qaeda?

bin Laden wants the Saudi Royal family dead and is as much opposed to them as he is to the United States.

[QUOTE="TheArGaia"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

If the US wanted oil that much, why wouldn't it invade Saudi Arabia?

GabuEx

No, not really.

Because someone always needs to add fuel to the fire.

Out of curiosity, I wonder why nobody claimed that Afghanistan was a war for oil.

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="Aku101"]

Yes, because backing an oppressive dictator publicly is not political suicide :roll:

Aku101

2% of the world oil supply isn't alot? Libya is the largest producer the easiest refinable oil in the world, therefore production costs decrease all around for NATO. Also with egypt in political turmoil, US needs a strong ally in the middle-east to go w/ israel.

[QUOTE="Aku101"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Exactly! It's as if the rebels were losing to a superior military when the west became involve. Consequently, non-intervention clearly wouldn't have ended in Gaddafi's favor.

l4dak47

Rebels were on the verge of losing, west intervenes no-fly zone gg for gadahfi, NATO cheers as they get new oil supply and pacify populace because they stopped an evil dictator which means more votes next election!

I'm sorry i was unaware you are privy to classified infromation regarding the costs of military operations. Also, you can't put dollar value on external benefits such as political footholds and influence in the region. try again.

[QUOTE="Aku101"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"] Who said anything about making it public? Also, orginal post is wrong. Libya does not make much oil compared to Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc. In fact, it only produces around 2% (last I heard) and most of that goes to Europe. The U.S. has no legitmate reason, both economically and morally, to go there. l4dak47

2% of the world oil supply isn't alot? Libya is the largest producer the easiest refinable oil in the world, therefore production costs decrease all around for NATO. Also with egypt in political turmoil, US needs a strong ally in the middle-east to go w/ israel.

Lolwut? US gets none of those? crude oil from libya gets shipped to europe for refining then shipped to US as exports. There's no good excuse to invade saudi arabia or venezuala.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="Aku101"]

Ok so? It's pretty obvious both Iraq wars and now libya were nothing more than oil grabs. You'd be naive to think that governments actually step into wars because it is the right thing to do. Governments mask resource grabs as a war in the name of justice and freedom all the time because it sounds better to the populance than "lol, we're just here for teh oil, u mad?".

Nothing wrong with that though.

Aku101

So why did the U.S. intervene in the Balkans in the 90's?

Excuse to get coal and to set up a military base in eastern europe.

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="Aku101"]

Rebels were on the verge of losing, west intervenes no-fly zone gg for gadahfi, NATO cheers as they get new oil supply and pacify populace because they stopped an evil dictator which means more votes next election!

Aku101

I'm sorry i was unaware you are privy to classified infromation regarding the costs of military operations. Also, you can't put dollar value on external benefits such as political footholds and influence in the region. try again.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Aku101"]

Yes, because backing an oppressive dictator publicly is not political suicide :roll:

Aku101

Exactly! It's as if the rebels were losing to a superior military when the west became involve. Consequently, non-intervention clearly wouldn't have ended in Gaddafi's favor.

Rebels were on the verge of losing, west intervenes no-fly zone gg for gadahfi, NATO cheers as they get new oil supply and pacify populace because they stopped an evil dictator which means more votes next election!

Yes, America obtains an oil supply that obviously didn't exist beforehand due to a corrupt dictator's lack of greed, and manages to spend billions in the process which couldn't have been used to do business with the guy under the table and save money instead during a period where politicians are attempting to balance budgets. GG, AMERICA!!

I could've told you that it wasn't for humanitarian reasons. There are a dozen other countries in that region that have it worse off than Lybia.

Out of curiosity, I wonder why nobody claimed that Afghanistan was a war for oil.

GabuEx

Because it was a front to invade iraq. Can't invade iraq after afghans just took down the WTC. Invade afghan, consolidate heroin farms there, then make excuse to invade iraq.

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="Aku101"]

Yes, because backing an oppressive dictator publicly is not political suicide :roll:

Aku101

2% of the world oil supply isn't alot? Libya is the largest producer the easiest refinable oil in the world, therefore production costs decrease all around for NATO. Also with egypt in political turmoil, US needs a strong ally in the middle-east to go w/ israel.

Cost decreases for NATO? Oil prices have surged over 8% since the conflict began and a large portion of Libya's oil infastructure has been damaged or even destroyed by the war...

And the US needs a strong ally in the middle east to go with Israel lol...? Um did Saudi Arabia and Iraq disappear while I wasn't looking?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Out of curiosity, I wonder why nobody claimed that Afghanistan was a war for oil.

Aku101

Because it was a front to invade iraq. Can't invade iraq after afghans just took down the WTC. Invade afghan, consolidate heroin farms there, then make excuse to invade iraq.

Yes because "consolidating heroin farms" is required to invade a country... I mean, you just can't invade without consolidated heroin production! That's preposterous!

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="Aku101"]

Yes, because backing an oppressive dictator publicly is not political suicide :roll:

Aku101

2% of the world oil supply isn't alot? Libya is the largest producer the easiest refinable oil in the world, therefore production costs decrease all around for NATO. Also with egypt in political turmoil, US needs a strong ally in the middle-east to go w/ israel.

War is very cheap, so those discount rates will definitely come in handy. I'm sure that the rebels won't stay in OPEC or anything!!

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="Aku101"]

2% of the world oil supply isn't alot? Libya is the largest producer the easiest refinable oil in the world, therefore production costs decrease all around for NATO. Also with egypt in political turmoil, US needs a strong ally in the middle-east to go w/ israel.

Aku101

Lolwut? US gets none of those? crude oil from libya gets shipped to europe for refining then shipped to US as exports. There's no good excuse to invade saudi arabia or venezuala.

[QUOTE="TheArGaia"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

If the US wanted oil that much, why wouldn't it invade Saudi Arabia?

coolbeans90

Weapons of mass destruction possessed by a regime linked to Al-Qaeda?

A better excuse would be to say the US is invading due to their oppressive actions against women. Seriously, they don't even let women vote or drive and a woman getting raped is just an excuse for authorities to punish her for being alone with a man who isn't her relative.

Not saying we should invade, but I can almost guarantee a lot of feminist groups wouldn't complain if we did.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Out of curiosity, I wonder why nobody claimed that Afghanistan was a war for oil.

Aku101

Because it was a front to invade iraq. Can't invade iraq after afghans just took down the WTC. Invade afghan, consolidate heroin farms there, then make excuse to invade iraq.

The Republicans were completely demolished over Iraq anyway, so I'm not exactly sure I understand how this "front" helped matters.

[QUOTE="Aku101"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Exactly! It's as if the rebels were losing to a superior military when the west became involve. Consequently, non-intervention clearly wouldn't have ended in Gaddafi's favor.

coolbeans90

Rebels were on the verge of losing, west intervenes no-fly zone gg for gadahfi, NATO cheers as they get new oil supply and pacify populace because they stopped an evil dictator which means more votes next election!

Yes, America obtains an oil supply that obviously didn't exist beforehand due to a corrupt dictator's lack of greed, and manages to spend billions in the process which couldn't have been used to do business with the guy under the table and save money instead during a period where politicians are attempting to balance budgets. GG, AMERICA!!

lol? why do business with him when you can just send planes bombing gadahfi installations wile the rebels do cleanup. No billions spent and you have major influence in the region. And u make voters happy! win win

Out of curiosity, I wonder why nobody claimed that Afghanistan was a war for oil.

GabuEx

It's been done. I argued with some guy who found a story about an oil pipeline through the region.