Out of curiosity, I wonder why nobody claimed that Afghanistan was a war for oil.
GabuEx
That one's for lithium.
:|
The Truth About Libya: It's Another Oil Grab
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Aku101"]
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
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.
The Republicans were completely demolished over Iraq anyway, so I'm not exactly sure I understand how this "front" helped matters.
That occured after the fact, imagine after WTC is hit, "US declares war on iraq" that won't sell as well to the people
[QUOTE="Aku101"][QUOTE="l4dak47"] It really isn't that much. Not to mention that U.S. gets none of those. So.......that's not the answer. If the U.S. really wanted oil, they would invade Saudi Arabia or Venzuela. l4dak47
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.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41714913/ns/world_news-africa/ "Over 85 percent of its crude exports go to Europe, while around 13 percent goes east of the Suez Canal to Asia. Around 32 percent of Libyan oil goes to Italy, 14 percent to Germany, 10 percent to China and France and 5 percent to the United States." 5% is nothing. Not worth wasting billions, especailly on rebels who could lose and are actually retreating now.Cool, now consider oil exports from those countries to the US.
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
[QUOTE="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.
Aku101
The Republicans were completely demolished over Iraq anyway, so I'm not exactly sure I understand how this "front" helped matters.
That occured after the fact, imagine after WTC is hit, "US declares war on iraq" that won't sell as well to the people
Because the Iraq war totally went over well with the people, and the US got so much out of the Iraq war...
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
[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
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
I know, right? It's not like cruise missiles cost a million a pop and aircraft are cheap to maintain in a war operation. And it's true that the U.S. has no influence on the region. Gotta stay a step ahead of them Ruskies!! =D
:lol:[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. coolbeans90
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!!
You do know its beneficialy to have influence over a country that is in OPEC right. :lol:
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
[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
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
Do you know anything lol? It is like you wrote your own book on US military and political strategy and used a pile of dirt as your source?
Sarcasm inbound:
1) I agree because the US military is free and doesn't cost anything!
2) This will give the US a foothold for influence in the region because we have no influence in the Middle East and North Africa AT ALL!
End Sarcasm.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41714913/ns/world_news-africa/ "Over 85 percent of its crude exports go to Europe, while around 13 percent goes east of the Suez Canal to Asia. Around 32 percent of Libyan oil goes to Italy, 14 percent to Germany, 10 percent to China and France and 5 percent to the United States." 5% is nothing. Not worth wasting billions, especailly on rebels who could lose and are actually retreating now.[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="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.
Aku101
Cool, now consider oil exports from those countries to the US.
Why? I've proven my point.[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]:lol:
[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
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!!
You do know its beneficialy to have influence over a country that is in OPEC right. :lol:
Assuming that the rebels even win. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110330/ap_on_re_af/af_libya "Moammar Gadhafi's ground forces recaptured a strategic oil town Wednesday and moved within striking distance of another major eastern city, nearly reversing the gains rebels made since international airstrikes began. Rebels pleaded for more help, while a U.S. official said government forces are making themselves harder to target by using civilian "battle wagons" with makeshift armaments instead of tanks."[QUOTE="Aku101"]
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
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!!
coolbeans90
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
I know, right? It's not like cruise missiles cost a million a pop and aircraft are cheap to maintain in a war operation. And it's true that the U.S. has no influence on the region. Gotta stay a step ahead of them Ruskies!! =D
Uh yeah? considering the BRICs are threating to the US economically and influentially, it would serve the US well to consolidate lesser countries. Need money? borrow from China by selling assets and have both economies linked to each other like conjoined twins.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41714913/ns/world_news-africa/ "Over 85 percent of its crude exports go to Europe, while around 13 percent goes east of the Suez Canal to Asia. Around 32 percent of Libyan oil goes to Italy, 14 percent to Germany, 10 percent to China and France and 5 percent to the United States." 5% is nothing. Not worth wasting billions, especailly on rebels who could lose and are actually retreating now.[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="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.
Aku101
Cool, now consider oil exports from those countries to the US.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Closest thing to Europe on that list (top 15 countries the US imports oil from) is Russia.
inb4 "its a .gov site and obviously a CIA cover-up for how much oil we get from Europe!"
Justifying the Iraqi invasion to the public would have been much more difficult without also invading Afghanistan. I bet George Bush wouldn't have been elected to a second term if that had happened. As for Libya, I don't see how anyone with an ounce of education can believe that it's anything BUT a grab for oil. There are countries in Africa in FAR worst conditions that deserve a lot more of our immediate attention. Unfortunately, those countries do not possess the resources and the infrastructure to be worth helping.major_silva
Nigeria makes way more oil than Libya does. I don't see us invading them, either.
Hell, Iran is one of the top producers in the world, and the US has got about all the excuse it could ask for to invade them.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]:lol:
[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
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!!
You do know its beneficialy to have influence over a country that is in OPEC right. :lol:
Just like we have influence over Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait. Damn, we practically own OPEC and practically dictate oil prices. That's why the price of gas is so stable. Can't put a price on that!
[QUOTE="Aku101"]
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
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!!
Buttons1990
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
Do you know anything lol? It is like you wrote your own book on US military and political strategy and used a pile of dirt as your source?
Sarcasm inbound:
1) I agree because the US military is free and doesn't cost anything!
2) This will give the US a foothold for influence in the region because we have no influence in the Middle East and North Africa AT ALL!
End Sarcasm.
1) It doesn't cost billions to bomb installation. Military costs come mainly from supporting infantry(marines) and the army, they guzzle more oil together than aircraft operations. I'm a USAF engineer working at edwards afb.
2) US just lost long time ally Egypt and its unclear what their relationship with the US will be, therefore they need another stong ally in the middle-east.
Thanks for playing.
[QUOTE="major_silva"]Justifying the Iraqi invasion to the public would have been much more difficult without also invading Afghanistan. I bet George Bush wouldn't have been elected to a second term if that had happened. As for Libya, I don't see how anyone with an ounce of education can believe that it's anything BUT a grab for oil. There are countries in Africa in FAR worst conditions that deserve a lot more of our immediate attention. Unfortunately, those countries do not possess the resources and the infrastructure to be worth helping.GabuEx
Nigeria makes way more oil than Libya does. I don't see us invading them, either.
Hell, Iran is one of the top producers in the world, and the US has got about all the excuse it could ask for to invade them.
It was only failed protests, not an actual rebellion in iran. ALso Nigeria has strong ties with teh US so invading them is bad.
nevermind our's and England's oil contracts were jsut recently approved through said evil dictator......Omni-SlashHush, your facts are just tools used to manipulate us all!
[QUOTE="Buttons1990"]
[QUOTE="Aku101"]
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
Aku101
Do you know anything lol? It is like you wrote your own book on US military and political strategy and used a pile of dirt as your source?
Sarcasm inbound:
1) I agree because the US military is free and doesn't cost anything!
2) This will give the US a foothold for influence in the region because we have no influence in the Middle East and North Africa AT ALL!
End Sarcasm.
1) It doesn't cost billions to bomb installation. Military costs come mainly from supporting infantry. I'm a USAF engineer working at edwards afb.
2) US just lost long time ally Egypt and its unclear what their relationship with the US will be, therefore they need another stong ally in the middle-east.
Thanks for playing.
Once again I ask (since you ignored the first time I asked because it completely destroyed your argument)... Did Saudi Arabia and Iraq evaporate?
And what the hell are you on about? "Military costs come mainly from supporting infantry..." Um lolwut? Not going to lie, I really hope a backup checks the aircraft you are an engineer for because if you know as much about aircraft as you do about what you are arguing right now, I feel sorry for the pilots and passengers who fly in those things...
Western/international conglomorate coroprations had contract to work the oil fields. all 1.5% of the worlds oil by the way, prior to ostracizing, sanctioning and bombing Libya.
This is not about oil.
That was easy eh?
can't really be a conspiracy if you already had basically full access to develop the oil.
Again all 1.5% of the worlds amount. hoowee...
[QUOTE="Buttons1990"]
[QUOTE="Aku101"]
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
Aku101
Do you know anything lol? It is like you wrote your own book on US military and political strategy and used a pile of dirt as your source?
Sarcasm inbound:
1) I agree because the US military is free and doesn't cost anything!
2) This will give the US a foothold for influence in the region because we have no influence in the Middle East and North Africa AT ALL!
End Sarcasm.
1) It doesn't cost billions to bomb installation. Military costs come mainly from supporting infantry(marines) and the army, they guzzle more oil together than aircraft operations. I'm a USAF engineer working at edwards afb.
2) US just lost long time ally Egypt and its unclear what their relationship with the US will be, therefore they need another stong ally in the middle-east.
Thanks for playing.
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134862469/congress-returns-to-face-budget-libya-questions "According to cost estimates compiled by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, the initial cost incurred by countries involved in creating the no-fly zone in Libya is between $400 million and $800 million. And the cost to maintain that zone is estimated to range from $30 million to $100 million per week." Not counting the costs for weapons like missiles.[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"]nevermind our's and England's oil contracts were jsut recently approved through said evil dictator......xaosHush, your facts are just tools used to manipulate us all! I feel so dirty defending Obama...and I don;t even think we need to be in Libya.....but I'm jsut so sick of people thinking the US wakes up every morning thinking of how we can screw everyone else over....
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
[QUOTE="major_silva"]Justifying the Iraqi invasion to the public would have been much more difficult without also invading Afghanistan. I bet George Bush wouldn't have been elected to a second term if that had happened. As for Libya, I don't see how anyone with an ounce of education can believe that it's anything BUT a grab for oil. There are countries in Africa in FAR worst conditions that deserve a lot more of our immediate attention. Unfortunately, those countries do not possess the resources and the infrastructure to be worth helping.Aku101
Nigeria makes way more oil than Libya does. I don't see us invading them, either.
Hell, Iran is one of the top producers in the world, and the US has got about all the excuse it could ask for to invade them.
It was only failed protests, not an actual rebellion in iran. ALso Nigeria has strong ties with teh US so invading them is bad.
There weren't even protests in Afghanistan or Iraq and we invaded and toppled their governments all the same.
If you have to invent stories to justify other stories you've invented, which in turn were justifications invented for further stories, it might be time to take a step back for a second.
[QUOTE="Aku101"]
[QUOTE="Buttons1990"]
Do you know anything lol? It is like you wrote your own book on US military and political strategy and used a pile of dirt as your source?
Sarcasm inbound:
1) I agree because the US military is free and doesn't cost anything!
2) This will give the US a foothold for influence in the region because we have no influence in the Middle East and North Africa AT ALL!
End Sarcasm.
Buttons1990
1) It doesn't cost billions to bomb installation. Military costs come mainly from supporting infantry. I'm a USAF engineer working at edwards afb.
2) US just lost long time ally Egypt and its unclear what their relationship with the US will be, therefore they need another stong ally in the middle-east.
Thanks for playing.
Once again I ask (since you ignored the first time I asked because it completely destroyed your argument)... Did Saudi Arabia and Iraq evaporate?
And what the hell are you on about? "Military costs come mainly from supporting infantry..." Um lolwut? Not going to lie, I really hope a backup checks the aircraft you are an engineer for because if you know as much about aircraft as you do about what you are arguing right now, I feel sorry for the pilots and passengers who fly in those things...
Count how many APCs, humvees, tanks and mobile artillery etc are used in ground operations vs. a couple of a-10s, f-18s being flown occasionally. And what about saudi arabia and iraq?
I have to agree with aku to a certain degree here even though I know he's usually just trolling. It's an oil grab with a good PR cover up. I also wonder why almost everybody on the face of the earth thinks that the only thing oil is good for is gasoline. damn near all plastics and rubbers are oil byproducts. the dashboard in your car-oil, the plastic for your kids toys-oil, bubble gum-oil, tires-oil... You name it and there's a good chance oil is in there somewhere.
Now if you control the resource responsible for creating almost all the worlds products, you control the world. A few american soldiers and a couple billion dollars aren't even close to the amount of money you could pull off 2% of the worlds oil. You people need to get educated.
[QUOTE="Aku101"]
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
Nigeria makes way more oil than Libya does. I don't see us invading them, either.
Hell, Iran is one of the top producers in the world, and the US has got about all the excuse it could ask for to invade them.
GabuEx
It was only failed protests, not an actual rebellion in iran. ALso Nigeria has strong ties with teh US so invading them is bad.
There weren't even protests in Afghanistan or Iraq and we invaded and toppled their governments all the same.
If you have to invent stories to justify other stories you've invented, which in turn were justifications invented for further stories, it might be time to take a step back for a second.
I dunno... al qaeda, a terrorist group who took down the WTC, a group funded and has close relations with the taliban, the previous afghan government...hmm an invasion is justified i think! WMDs in iraq? perfect exuse to invade for oil and they also support al qaeda, a perfect excuse to ride on since it worked the first time!
[QUOTE="major_silva"]Justifying the Iraqi invasion to the public would have been much more difficult without also invading Afghanistan. I bet George Bush wouldn't have been elected to a second term if that had happened. As for Libya, I don't see how anyone with an ounce of education can believe that it's anything BUT a grab for oil. There are countries in Africa in FAR worst conditions that deserve a lot more of our immediate attention. Unfortunately, those countries do not possess the resources and the infrastructure to be worth helping.GabuEx
Nigeria makes way more oil than Libya does. I don't see us invading them, either.
Hell, Iran is one of the top producers in the world, and the US has got about all the excuse it could ask for to invade them.
It is true that some African nations are large producers of both oil and natural gas and yet people still say "ZOMG THEY HAVE NO OIL SO THAT'S WHY THE US DON'T INVADES HERPA DERPA DERP DERP DIDLY DERPA".
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
[QUOTE="Aku101"]
It was only failed protests, not an actual rebellion in iran. ALso Nigeria has strong ties with teh US so invading them is bad.
Aku101
There weren't even protests in Afghanistan or Iraq and we invaded and toppled their governments all the same.
If you have to invent stories to justify other stories you've invented, which in turn were justifications invented for further stories, it might be time to take a step back for a second.
I dunno... al qaeda, a terrorist group who took down the WTC, a group funded and has close relations with the taliban, the previous afghan government...hmm an invasion is justified i think! WMDs in iraq? perfect exuse to invade for oil and they also support al qaeda, a perfect excuse to ride on since it worked the first time!
The Iraq/oil story makes a lot more sense before taking into consideration that the total cost is well over $1 trillion. That's bloody expensive oil, and we still aren't getting it for free.
[QUOTE="Aku101"]
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
There weren't even protests in Afghanistan or Iraq and we invaded and toppled their governments all the same.
If you have to invent stories to justify other stories you've invented, which in turn were justifications invented for further stories, it might be time to take a step back for a second.
coolbeans90
I dunno... al qaeda, a terrorist group who took down the WTC, a group funded and has close relations with the taliban, the previous afghan government...hmm an invasion is justified i think! WMDs in iraq? perfect exuse to invade for oil and they also support al qaeda, a perfect excuse to ride on since it worked the first time!
The Iraq/oil story makes a lot more sense before taking into consideration that the total cost is well over $1 trillion. That's bloody expensive oil, and we still aren't getting it for free.
You are putting too much stock into costs especially when its funded by the government. THe important thing is to promote growth and spending in the US economy. Government spending is not a huge factor.
GDP = consumption + government + investment + (exports - imports). Of these, the government is the smallest.
[QUOTE="Buttons1990"]
[QUOTE="Aku101"]
1) It doesn't cost billions to bomb installation. Military costs come mainly from supporting infantry. I'm a USAF engineer working at edwards afb.
2) US just lost long time ally Egypt and its unclear what their relationship with the US will be, therefore they need another stong ally in the middle-east.
Thanks for playing.
Aku101
Once again I ask (since you ignored the first time I asked because it completely destroyed your argument)... Did Saudi Arabia and Iraq evaporate?
And what the hell are you on about? "Military costs come mainly from supporting infantry..." Um lolwut? Not going to lie, I really hope a backup checks the aircraft you are an engineer for because if you know as much about aircraft as you do about what you are arguing right now, I feel sorry for the pilots and passengers who fly in those things...
Count how many APCs, humvees, tanks and mobile artillery etc are used in ground operations vs. a couple of a-10s, f-18s being flown occasionally. And what about saudi arabia and iraq?
Um... We aren't doing an ground operations in Libya lol... Not to mention that the cost of APCs, Humvees, tanks, and mobile artillery PALE in comparison to a single jet aircraft... So lets see... Ground vehicles (which aren't even being used in this conflict), the fuel for them (which isn't needed since they aren't being used lol), and the ground troops to operate them (which aren't there because, once again, they aren't being used lol)... VS F18 Super Hornet at what, $30+ MILLION dollars for a single aircraft, the $2.5 BILLION Aircraft Carrier it launches off of... The Jet Fuel, which is about 10 times the price of diesel...
YEP I see your point now... Cost way more to drive an imaginary humvee around Libya than to station an Aircraft Carrier and launch flight ops from off the coast... I stand corrected.
And Saudia Arabia and Iraq, you explained how we are intervening in Libya to gain a strong ally in the region and to further our influence lol... We already influence ALL politics in the region... And we already have SEVERAL strong allies in the region lol... Do you know anything about this topic at all lol?
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
[QUOTE="major_silva"]Justifying the Iraqi invasion to the public would have been much more difficult without also invading Afghanistan. I bet George Bush wouldn't have been elected to a second term if that had happened. As for Libya, I don't see how anyone with an ounce of education can believe that it's anything BUT a grab for oil. There are countries in Africa in FAR worst conditions that deserve a lot more of our immediate attention. Unfortunately, those countries do not possess the resources and the infrastructure to be worth helping.October_Tide
Nigeria makes way more oil than Libya does. I don't see us invading them, either.
Hell, Iran is one of the top producers in the world, and the US has got about all the excuse it could ask for to invade them.
It is true that some African nations are large producers of both oil and natural gas and yet people still say "ZOMG THEY HAVE NO OIL SO THAT'S WHY THE US DON'T INVADES HERPA DERPA DERP DERP DIDLY DERPA".
Nice strawman. To invade a country you need a legitimate reason (even if you have to fabricate it), otherwise the population at home and abroad gets restless. There is no pretext right now to invade Nigeria or any other other significant African country, but you can bet that when there is, we will be there.[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
[QUOTE="Aku101"]
I dunno... al qaeda, a terrorist group who took down the WTC, a group funded and has close relations with the taliban, the previous afghan government...hmm an invasion is justified i think! WMDs in iraq? perfect exuse to invade for oil and they also support al qaeda, a perfect excuse to ride on since it worked the first time!
Aku101
The Iraq/oil story makes a lot more sense before taking into consideration that the total cost is well over $1 trillion. That's bloody expensive oil, and we still aren't getting it for free.
You are putting too much stock into costs especially when its funded by the government. THe important thing is to promote growth and spending in the US economy. Government spending is not a huge factor.
GDP = consumption + government + investment + (exports - imports). Of these, the government is the smallest.
You are putting too little consideration to incorporating a cost/benefit analysis into the standard freshman economics, G.D.P. model. Losses in consumption/investment are greater in magnitude than the increase in gov't spending in the Iraq war. Moreover much of said spending doesn't substantively contribute to economic activity either in the immediate or long term. And gov't spending as a percentage of G.D.P is about 39.1%. (plagiarized from Wiki) Fairly significant.
[QUOTE="Aku101"]
[QUOTE="Buttons1990"]
Once again I ask (since you ignored the first time I asked because it completely destroyed your argument)... Did Saudi Arabia and Iraq evaporate?
And what the hell are you on about? "Military costs come mainly from supporting infantry..." Um lolwut? Not going to lie, I really hope a backup checks the aircraft you are an engineer for because if you know as much about aircraft as you do about what you are arguing right now, I feel sorry for the pilots and passengers who fly in those things...
Buttons1990
Count how many APCs, humvees, tanks and mobile artillery etc are used in ground operations vs. a couple of a-10s, f-18s being flown occasionally. And what about saudi arabia and iraq?
Um... We aren't doing an ground operations in Libya lol... Not to mention that the cost of APCs, Humvees, tanks, and mobile artillery PALE in comparison to a single jet aircraft... So lets see... Ground vehicles (which aren't even being used in this conflict), the fuel for them (which isn't needed since they aren't being used lol), and the ground troops to operate them (which aren't there because, once again, they aren't being used lol)... VS F18 Super Hornet at what, $30+ MILLION dollars for a single aircraft, the $2.5 BILLION Aircraft Carrier it launches off of... The Jet Fuel, which is about 10 times the price of diesel...
YEP I see your point now... Cost way more to drive an imaginary humvee around Libya than to station an Aircraft Carrier and launch flight ops from off the coast... I stand corrected.
And Saudia Arabia and Iraq, you explained how we are intervening in Libya to gain a strong ally in the region and to further our influence lol... We already influence ALL politics in the region... And we already have SEVERAL strong allies in the region lol... Do you know anything about this topic at all lol?
You asked why infantry and army costs operating costs are more than USAF/navy operating costs and I showed you why. Nice red herring though, didn't work.
Also next point... LOL? yes because it costs 30 million to launch an f-18 to bomb a target LMAO! and $2.5 billion to deploy an existing navy aircraft carrier into the region!
I think u r confued between initial unit costs and operating costs. Purchasing costs are higher for USAF and Navy but operating costs are significantly lower than USMC and Army. The libya operation is not costing billions of dollars bro.
Also regarding arabia and iraq... you can never have enough allies in a region where nearly everyone hates u.
[QUOTE="major_silva"]Justifying the Iraqi invasion to the public would have been much more difficult without also invading Afghanistan. I bet George Bush wouldn't have been elected to a second term if that had happened. As for Libya, I don't see how anyone with an ounce of education can believe that it's anything BUT a grab for oil. There are countries in Africa in FAR worst conditions that deserve a lot more of our immediate attention. Unfortunately, those countries do not possess the resources and the infrastructure to be worth helping.GabuEx
Nigeria makes way more oil than Libya does. I don't see us invading them, either.
Hell, Iran is one of the top producers in the world, and the US has got about all the excuse it could ask for to invade them.
Would you STOP bringing logic and facts in this thread!? How else are we supposed to spout our conspiracy theories!? :evil:[QUOTE="Buttons1990"]
[QUOTE="Aku101"]
Count how many APCs, humvees, tanks and mobile artillery etc are used in ground operations vs. a couple of a-10s, f-18s being flown occasionally. And what about saudi arabia and iraq?
Aku101
Um... We aren't doing an ground operations in Libya lol... Not to mention that the cost of APCs, Humvees, tanks, and mobile artillery PALE in comparison to a single jet aircraft... So lets see... Ground vehicles (which aren't even being used in this conflict), the fuel for them (which isn't needed since they aren't being used lol), and the ground troops to operate them (which aren't there because, once again, they aren't being used lol)... VS F18 Super Hornet at what, $30+ MILLION dollars for a single aircraft, the $2.5 BILLION Aircraft Carrier it launches off of... The Jet Fuel, which is about 10 times the price of diesel...
YEP I see your point now... Cost way more to drive an imaginary humvee around Libya than to station an Aircraft Carrier and launch flight ops from off the coast... I stand corrected.
And Saudia Arabia and Iraq, you explained how we are intervening in Libya to gain a strong ally in the region and to further our influence lol... We already influence ALL politics in the region... And we already have SEVERAL strong allies in the region lol... Do you know anything about this topic at all lol?
You asked why infantry and army costs operating costs are more than USAF/navy operating costs and I showed you why. Nice red herring though, didn't work.
Also next point... LOL? yes because it costs 30 million to launch an f-18 to bomb a target LMAO! and $2.5 billion to deploy an existing navy aircraft carrier into the region!
I think u r confued between initial unit costs and operating costs. Purchasing costs are higher for USAF and Navy but operating costs are significantly lower than USMC and Army. The libya operation is not costing billions of dollars bro.
Also regarding arabia and iraq... you can never have enough allies in a region where nearly everyone hates u.
You invent facts, you invent stories, you invent US politics, you invent US military strategy, you invent your own proof as to why all of these things are the way you say they are (lol), and now you invent words in my mouth I never asked... I have asked ONE single question of you "Did Saudi Arabia and Iraq disappear...?" I wouldn't ask anything else of you because you clearly know absolutely nothing about anything at all.
This is pretty much a given.. Look at the countries that were targeted for war or "humanitarian aid".. They consisted of countires iwth vaste oil deposites.. While places like Darfur have been completely ignored, even though far more people have died there.
[QUOTE="October_Tide"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]
Nigeria makes way more oil than Libya does. I don't see us invading them, either.
Hell, Iran is one of the top producers in the world, and the US has got about all the excuse it could ask for to invade them.
major_silva
It is true that some African nations are large producers of both oil and natural gas and yet people still say "ZOMG THEY HAVE NO OIL SO THAT'S WHY THE US DON'T INVADES HERPA DERPA DERP DERP DIDLY DERPA".
Nice strawman. To invade a country you need a legitimate reason (even if you have to fabricate it), otherwise the population at home and abroad gets restless. There is no pretext right now to invade Nigeria or any other other significant African country, but you can bet that when there is, we will be there.Iran is the #4 oil producer in the entire world, Bush explicitly put them on his "axis of evil", we've been publicly suspecting them of pursuing nuclear weapons for years, and yet we haven't invaded yet. Why?
[QUOTE="Aku101"]
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
The Iraq/oil story makes a lot more sense before taking into consideration that the total cost is well over $1 trillion. That's bloody expensive oil, and we still aren't getting it for free.
coolbeans90
You are putting too much stock into costs especially when its funded by the government. THe important thing is to promote growth and spending in the US economy. Government spending is not a huge factor.
GDP = consumption + government + investment + (exports - imports). Of these, the government is the smallest.
You are putting too little consideration to incorporating a cost/benefit analysis into the standard freshman economics, G.D.P. model. Losses in consumption/investment are greater in magnitude than the increase in gov't spending in the Iraq war. Moreover much of said spending doesn't substantively contribute to economic activity either in the immediate or long term.
Cool someone else knows economics in this thread, this will be alot easier:
What you said disproves nothing I said previously, but i'm sure you acknowledge that. You are correct on all points, but you are not considering the positive externalities gained from the iraq campaign. While the trillion dollars could be spent boosting the economy, you can't put a dollar value on: the non-use value of an iraqi democracy which is enjoyed by american citizens, the multiplier effect in other economies etc.
The most important thing gained from the iraq campaign is the lower production costs which spurs economic growth. Which always has positive effects in the long-run.
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
[QUOTE="Aku101"]
It was only failed protests, not an actual rebellion in iran. ALso Nigeria has strong ties with teh US so invading them is bad.
Aku101
There weren't even protests in Afghanistan or Iraq and we invaded and toppled their governments all the same.
If you have to invent stories to justify other stories you've invented, which in turn were justifications invented for further stories, it might be time to take a step back for a second.
I dunno... al qaeda, a terrorist group who took down the WTC, a group funded and has close relations with the taliban, the previous afghan government...hmm an invasion is justified i think! WMDs in iraq? perfect exuse to invade for oil and they also support al qaeda, a perfect excuse to ride on since it worked the first time!
And yet we haven't invaded Iran, a country with twice the oil production of Iraq.
is it oil grab? or is it a simple "save the innocent libyan people from Qaddafi massacre" mission? hmmmmm
Harisemo
... If the UN security council (Britian, France, China, Russia and the US) were pro humanitarian aid, they wouldn't have allowed the events at Rwanda and Darfur to go uninterrupted.. But alas they did..
[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="major_silva"]Justifying the Iraqi invasion to the public would have been much more difficult without also invading Afghanistan. I bet George Bush wouldn't have been elected to a second term if that had happened. As for Libya, I don't see how anyone with an ounce of education can believe that it's anything BUT a grab for oil. There are countries in Africa in FAR worst conditions that deserve a lot more of our immediate attention. Unfortunately, those countries do not possess the resources and the infrastructure to be worth helping.Verge_6
Nigeria makes way more oil than Libya does. I don't see us invading them, either.
Hell, Iran is one of the top producers in the world, and the US has got about all the excuse it could ask for to invade them.
Would you STOP bringing logic and facts in this thread!? How else are we supposed to spout our conspiracy theories!? :evil: That is hardly logical. As I've already stated, Nigeria is currently not in turmoil. Iran is a different story altogether, as it's neither in Africa nor is it weak, nor is it experiencing political upheaval. The bottom line is profit here, whether we are profiting politically or economically, it makes no difference. Where is the might of Europe and North America in Somalia? Sudan? Ivory Coast? Libya is prime target because Western trade in the area was actually being jeopardized. That's the key word here.[QUOTE="Aku101"]
[QUOTE="Buttons1990"]
Um... We aren't doing an ground operations in Libya lol... Not to mention that the cost of APCs, Humvees, tanks, and mobile artillery PALE in comparison to a single jet aircraft... So lets see... Ground vehicles (which aren't even being used in this conflict), the fuel for them (which isn't needed since they aren't being used lol), and the ground troops to operate them (which aren't there because, once again, they aren't being used lol)... VS F18 Super Hornet at what, $30+ MILLION dollars for a single aircraft, the $2.5 BILLION Aircraft Carrier it launches off of... The Jet Fuel, which is about 10 times the price of diesel...
YEP I see your point now... Cost way more to drive an imaginary humvee around Libya than to station an Aircraft Carrier and launch flight ops from off the coast... I stand corrected.
And Saudia Arabia and Iraq, you explained how we are intervening in Libya to gain a strong ally in the region and to further our influence lol... We already influence ALL politics in the region... And we already have SEVERAL strong allies in the region lol... Do you know anything about this topic at all lol?
Buttons1990
You asked why infantry and army costs operating costs are more than USAF/navy operating costs and I showed you why. Nice red herring though, didn't work.
Also next point... LOL? yes because it costs 30 million to launch an f-18 to bomb a target LMAO! and $2.5 billion to deploy an existing navy aircraft carrier into the region!
I think u r confued between initial unit costs and operating costs. Purchasing costs are higher for USAF and Navy but operating costs are significantly lower than USMC and Army. The libya operation is not costing billions of dollars bro.
Also regarding arabia and iraq... you can never have enough allies in a region where nearly everyone hates u.
You invent facts, you invent stories, you invent US politics, you invent US military strategy, you invent your own proof as to why all of these things are the way you say they are (lol), and now you invent words in my mouth I never asked... I have asked ONE single question of you "Did Saudi Arabia and Iraq disappear...?" I wouldn't ask anything else of you because you clearly know absolutely nothing about anything at all.
Unless you have a reading comprehension problem, which i sincerely hope you don't then I assure that you asked me to clarify why usaf/navy operating costs are lower than usmc and army. Also, I have addressed saudi arabia and iraq and they did not disappear. Last I checked they still exist. I sincerely hope you are not trolling, because if you are then this argument is pointless, if not then lord help you in understanding simple logic.
[QUOTE="Harisemo"]
is it oil grab? or is it a simple "save the innocent libyan people from Qaddafi massacre" mission? hmmmmm
sSubZerOo
... If the UN security council (Britian, France, China, Russia and the US) were pro humanitarian aid, they wouldn't have allowed the events at Rwanda and Darfur to go uninterrupted.. But alas they did..
So why would China side with the US, France, and Britain on this? They already had dealings with Gadhafi... If he won, it would mean same old same old business between him and China... And Russia as well...? They have done nothing but denounce a no-fly zone since the idea arose, even stating that the US was lying about aircraft bombings... Not to mention they have no imports from Libya (or almost anywhere for that matter as far as resources are concerned) as Russia has probably the largest stockpile of potential resources on Earth...
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment