The Truth About Libya: It's Another Oil Grab

[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.

GabuEx

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.

1. the situation hasn't escalated into a crisis as in a full rebellion everywhere in iran which happened in libya. There is also a semblence of democracy there, albeit flawed and corrupt, it is there, it's just that the more liberal demogrpahic is very vocal while the hard-liners want to suppress them which makes up the majority of the sentiment of the country.

2. Iran is not as much of a pushover as iraq or libya.

[QUOTE="major_silva"] The bottom line is profit hereVerge_6

Can't really obtain something diplomatically with someone who hates you and everything you stand for ;)

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Aku101"]

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.

Aku101

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 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.

Care to name these positive externalities gained from Iraq which would have incentivized the U.S. operation in the first place? Sure the Iraqi people benefit from democracy in the long run, etc. But it is the Iraqis who benefit from this, and it doesn't strengthen the oil motive explanation. How in the short-term would you posit U.S. benefits from this, all factors considered? The U.S. certainly didn't make gains on account of oil. The trillion dollars spent on the war wasn't exactly a series of expenditures designed around economic stimulation.

It has positive effects in the long run, but do these long-term benefits outweigh the exorbitant costs in the short term? After all, "in the long run, we're all dead."

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

is it oil grab? or is it a simple "save the innocent libyan people from Qaddafi massacre" mission? hmmmmm

Buttons1990

... 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...

yes and if he lost, China may be axed out on the deal..

And Russia as well...?

Same reason.. You don't take sides against council members who are going to openly move against him.. He is also shown to be completely unstable, and incapable of holding the country together..

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...

You don't understand do you.. Once that regime ends, they can renegotiate the deals for the oil deals..

[QUOTE="major_silva"][QUOTE="October_Tide"]

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".

GabuEx

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="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="major_silva"] 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. major_silva

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?

Unlike Saddam who was widely hated within the region, Iran is a bit of a Islamist leader.. Do people realize the United States is in bed with one of the most brutal and extreme factions in the Middle East? Saudi Arabia?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[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

And yet we haven't invaded Iran, a country with twice the oil production of Iraq.

1. the situation hasn't escalated into a crisis as in a full rebellion everywhere in iran which happened in libya. There is also a semblence of democracy there, albeit flawed and corrupt, it is there, it's just that the more liberal demogrpahic is very vocal while the hard-liners want to suppress them which makes up the majority of the sentiment of the country.

2. Iran is not as much of a pushover as iraq or libya.

1. Why do you keep bringing this up when there literally were no protests whatsoever in Iraq or Afghanistan?

2. Oh, OK, so if we do invade a country, it's because we want their oil, and if we don't invade a country, it's because we stil want their oil but think it'd be hard to get.

If you invent so many caveats for your position that it is literally impossible for it to be proven wrong, you may need to re-evaluate matters.

[QUOTE="Buttons1990"]

[QUOTE="Aku101"]

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.

Aku101

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.

I would rather ask an inanimate object to clarify something for me than to ask you sir... I can assure you, I have not asked anything of the sort, you have already demonstrated your understanding (or lack thereof I should say) of this entire topic throughout this entire thread, spouting nothing but obvious nonsense... And now I backaway from our argument because it kind of makes me feel like I am arguing with a six year old...

inb4 "yep, I won the argument" response to this.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="major_silva"] The bottom line is profit hereAku101

Can't really obtain something diplomatically with someone who hates you and everything you stand for ;)

If you ignore the entire Middle East, sure, I can see why you'd think that. ;)

[QUOTE="Aku101"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

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.

coolbeans90

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 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.

Care to name these positive externalities which would have incentivized the U.S. to be gained from Iraq? Sure the Iraqi people benefit from democracy in the long run, etc. But it is the Iraqis who benefit from this, and it doesn't strengthen the oil motive explanation. How in the short-term would you posit U.S. benefits from this, all factors considered? The U.S. certainly didn't make gains on account of oil. The trillion dollars spent on the war wasn't exactly a series of expenditures designed around economic stimulation.

It has positive effects in the long run, but do these long-term benefits outweigh the exorbitant costs in the short term? After all, "in the long run, we're all dead."

Positive externalities:

-multiplier effetcs in other countries' economies which in turns yields positive results for the US

-non-use value obtained from promoting democracy

-political clout gained from iraq campaign

these are just some of the positive externalities gained which you cannot put a dollar value on.

Economic growth always happens in the long-run even if in the short-run it does not seem like it. Easy example: tradeable pollution permits are introduced, cost-effectiveness is obtained over time with the trading of permits until MACs of all firms are equal, economic sustainability rises, PPF shifts to the right, economic growth happens in the long run.

[QUOTE="Aku101"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

And yet we haven't invaded Iran, a country with twice the oil production of Iraq.

GabuEx

1. the situation hasn't escalated into a crisis as in a full rebellion everywhere in iran which happened in libya. There is also a semblence of democracy there, albeit flawed and corrupt, it is there, it's just that the more liberal demogrpahic is very vocal while the hard-liners want to suppress them which makes up the majority of the sentiment of the country.

2. Iran is not as much of a pushover as iraq or libya.

1. Why do you keep bringing this up when there literally were no protests whatsoever in Iraq or Afghanistan?

2. Oh, OK, so if we do invade a country, it's because we want their oil, and if we don't invade a country, it's because we want still their oil but think it'd be hard to get.

If you invent so many caveats for your position that it is literally impossible for it to be proven wrong, you may need to re-evaluate matters.

[QUOTE="Aku101"]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"] And the least profitable way of obtaining something is through a war. Oh, wait, there's an exception to this rule in this case, isn't there?Verge_6

Can't really obtain something diplomatically with someone who hates you and everything you stand for ;)

If you ignore the entire Middle East, sure, I can see why you'd think that. ;)

The US has negotiatons with every friendly country in the middle east in regards to oil. unfortunately the haters have alot of it too and holding hands singing kum-ba-yah just doesn't work.

God, I love OT. Home of the armchair politicians/economists. Never change, OT. Never change.

there is something elso going on IMO. 3% of the worlds oil doesnt seem worth the effort, when the could put for th that effort somewhere else with more oil. i have no doubt that they are after something they are not telling us, oil included, but i dont think thats the main prize here.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

[QUOTE="Aku101"]

Can't really obtain something diplomatically with someone who hates you and everything you stand for ;)

Aku101

If you ignore the entire Middle East, sure, I can see why you'd think that. ;)

The US has negotiatons with every friendly country in the middle east in regards to oil. unfortunately the haters have alot of it too and holding hands singing kum-ba-yah just doesn't work.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Aku101"]

1. the situation hasn't escalated into a crisis as in a full rebellion everywhere in iran which happened in libya. There is also a semblence of democracy there, albeit flawed and corrupt, it is there, it's just that the more liberal demogrpahic is very vocal while the hard-liners want to suppress them which makes up the majority of the sentiment of the country.

2. Iran is not as much of a pushover as iraq or libya.

major_silva

1. Why do you keep bringing this up when there literally were no protests whatsoever in Iraq or Afghanistan?

2. Oh, OK, so if we do invade a country, it's because we want their oil, and if we don't invade a country, it's because we want still their oil but think it'd be hard to get.

If you invent so many caveats for your position that it is literally impossible for it to be proven wrong, you may need to re-evaluate matters.

How would I justify an invasion of Iran? Uh, how about literally the exact same way in which the invasion of Iraq was justified?

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Aku101"]

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 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.

Aku101

Care to name these positive externalities which would have incentivized the U.S. to be gained from Iraq? Sure the Iraqi people benefit from democracy in the long run, etc. But it is the Iraqis who benefit from this, and it doesn't strengthen the oil motive explanation. How in the short-term would you posit U.S. benefits from this, all factors considered? The U.S. certainly didn't make gains on account of oil. The trillion dollars spent on the war wasn't exactly a series of expenditures designed around economic stimulation.

It has positive effects in the long run, but do these long-term benefits outweigh the exorbitant costs in the short term? After all, "in the long run, we're all dead."

Positive externalities:

-multiplier effetcs in other countries' economies which in turns yields positive results for the US

-non-use value obtained from promoting democracy

-political clout gained from iraq campaign

these are just some of the positive externalities gained which you cannot put a dollar value on.

Economic growth always happens in the long-run even if in the short-run it does not seem like it. Easy example: tradeable pollution permits are introduced, cost-effectiveness is obtained over time with the trading of permits until MACs of all firms are equal, economic sustainability rises, PPF shifts to the right, economic growth happens in the long run.

These multiplier effects take a while to recover a country from a war, let alone rise above the prior status-quo.

Democracy, fair point.

Political shenanigans, also a fair point.

Oil doesn't seem to be the motive.

Yes, economic growth always happens in the long run. However, the actual point of discussion is whether or not it would have been greater than other courses of action, ceteris paribus.

Im going to throw in my 2 cents, i was reading the whole thread but got quite bored of all the sarcasm.

The Americans nor any other country should have gotten involved in this, it was a civil war no need for any other nation to be involved.

If America and the rest of the countries involved was doing this for "all the right reasons" such as the human element then why not get involved in Rawanda, Zimbabwe, Darfur?

The genocide and attrocities in the above countries are at this point far worse then Libya.

Again, creating the no fly zone doesnt mean you have to bomb a nation, there was no need to bomb the country when all your doing is controlling the sky's.

Why Nato is currently there none of us know, it was really the French that wanted to get involved, and get rid of Gadafi i dont think anyone else really cared, thusly they all countries involved not just America have now got in the thick of it with no exit strategy.

There is no reason for anyone to be involved currently in the civil war just as all these nations have shown there lack of interest in getting involved in the past.

[QUOTE="major_silva"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

1. Why do you keep bringing this up when there literally were no protests whatsoever in Iraq or Afghanistan?

2. Oh, OK, so if we do invade a country, it's because we want their oil, and if we don't invade a country, it's because we want still their oil but think it'd be hard to get.

If you invent so many caveats for your position that it is literally impossible for it to be proven wrong, you may need to re-evaluate matters.

GabuEx

How would I justify an invasion of Iran? Uh, how about literally the exact same way in which the invasion of Iraq was justified?

Surely you can not deny the amount of focus on the Middle East is far greater than say Africa where far more people have died.. Darfur and Rwanda, mass genocides unlike any of the events we have seen in places such as Libya.. Yet hardly a finger was raised, where hundreds of thousands have been/were killed.. You can't claim its to put down a unruly dictator, Gadaffi hasn't even reached a fraction to the body count of said conflicts.

How would I justify an invasion of Iran? Uh, how about literally the exact same way in which the invasion of Iraq was justified?

GabuEx

Yea, right, why not? Because we all know how many WMDs we found, not to mention what a resounding success the whole affair was. I hear our Great and Noble Hero George W. Bush is coming to my town next week, maybe I'll get to ask him how it feels to be so loved for liberating the Middle East.

Surely you can not deny the amount of focus on the Middle East is far greater than say Africa where far more people have died.. Darfur and Rwanda, mass genocides unlike any of the events we have seen in places such as Libya.. Yet hardly a finger was raised, where hundreds of thousands have been/were killed.. You can't claim its to put down a unruly dictator, Gadaffi hasn't even reached a fraction to the body count of said conflicts.

sSubZerOo

I can't claim to know what went through the minds of the political leaders who authorize attacks in one country but don't in another, but I can certainly claim that the idea that "it's to get oil" quite simply does not hold up to logical scrutiny. The fact that I cannot offer an exact answer regarding what the motivation leading up to a war was does not mean that I must logically accept whatever explanation someone puts forth.

[QUOTE="Aku101"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Care to name these positive externalities which would have incentivized the U.S. to be gained from Iraq? Sure the Iraqi people benefit from democracy in the long run, etc. But it is the Iraqis who benefit from this, and it doesn't strengthen the oil motive explanation. How in the short-term would you posit U.S. benefits from this, all factors considered? The U.S. certainly didn't make gains on account of oil. The trillion dollars spent on the war wasn't exactly a series of expenditures designed around economic stimulation.

It has positive effects in the long run, but do these long-term benefits outweigh the exorbitant costs in the short term? After all, "in the long run, we're all dead."

coolbeans90

Positive externalities:

-multiplier effetcs in other countries' economies which in turns yields positive results for the US

-non-use value obtained from promoting democracy

-political clout gained from iraq campaign

these are just some of the positive externalities gained which you cannot put a dollar value on.

Economic growth always happens in the long-run even if in the short-run it does not seem like it. Easy example: tradeable pollution permits are introduced, cost-effectiveness is obtained over time with the trading of permits until MACs of all firms are equal, economic sustainability rises, PPF shifts to the right, economic growth happens in the long run.

These multiplier effects take a while to recover a country from a war, let alone rise above the prior status-quo.

Democracy, fair point.

Political shenanigans, also a fair point.

Oil doesn't seem to be the motive.

Yes, economic growth always happens in the long run. However, the actual point of discussion is whether or not it would have been greater than other courses of action, ceteris paribus.

Getting oil from iraq all things being equal would have been impossible to do diplomatically since saddam showed that negotiations and threats are of no use since he constantly militarized against the wishes of the UN. Achieving the benefits gained from the iraq war through other courses of action is not a question of asking what better alternative are there? but rather if an alternative was even possible to achieve the same ends.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

How would I justify an invasion of Iran? Uh, how about literally the exact same way in which the invasion of Iraq was justified?

major_silva

Yea, right, why not? Because we all know how many WMDs we found, not to mention what a resounding success the whole affair was. I hear our Great and Noble Hero George W. Bush is coming to my town next week, maybe I'll get to ask him how it feels to be so loved for liberating the Middle East.

Holy straw man, Batman; my head is spinning from it all.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Surely you can not deny the amount of focus on the Middle East is far greater than say Africa where far more people have died.. Darfur and Rwanda, mass genocides unlike any of the events we have seen in places such as Libya.. Yet hardly a finger was raised, where hundreds of thousands have been/were killed.. You can't claim its to put down a unruly dictator, Gadaffi hasn't even reached a fraction to the body count of said conflicts.

GabuEx

I can't claim to know what went through the minds of the political leaders who authorize attacks in one country but don't in another, but I can certainly claim that the idea that "it's to get oil" quite simply does not hold up to logical scrutiny. The fact that I cannot offer an exact answer regarding what the motivation leading up to a war was does not mean that I must logically accept whatever explanation someone puts forth.

So it doesn't seem hypocritical to you the US is goign after Libya for being a oppressive regime in a civil war.. While at the same time fully supporting Saudi Arabia, a country ran by a extreme islamic monarchy? Not even a sneaking suspicion why the majority of concern is placed on the Middle East just because it happens to hold a large oil supply overall? I find that hard to believe Gab, if they were there for humanitarian reasons and only that.. Things like Rwanda wouldn't have been ignored.. Things like Darfur would have been immediately pounced on.. Instead they were conviently swept under the carpet..

The Skit from Jon Stewart sums it up nicely..http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-21-2011/america-s-freedom-packages

All things being equal, why did we intervene in libya and not in rwanda? Both had humanitiarian crises but libya has resources to be gained unlike rwanda. Plain and simple, otherwise we would have intervened in rwanda if it was based solely on humanitarian reasons.

[QUOTE="major_silva"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

How would I justify an invasion of Iran? Uh, how about literally the exact same way in which the invasion of Iraq was justified?

GabuEx

Yea, right, why not? Because we all know how many WMDs we found, not to mention what a resounding success the whole affair was. I hear our Great and Noble Hero George W. Bush is coming to my town next week, maybe I'll get to ask him how it feels to be so loved for liberating the Middle East.

Holy straw man, Batman; my head is spinning from it all.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Surely you can not deny the amount of focus on the Middle East is far greater than say Africa where far more people have died.. Darfur and Rwanda, mass genocides unlike any of the events we have seen in places such as Libya.. Yet hardly a finger was raised, where hundreds of thousands have been/were killed.. You can't claim its to put down a unruly dictator, Gadaffi hasn't even reached a fraction to the body count of said conflicts.

sSubZerOo

I can't claim to know what went through the minds of the political leaders who authorize attacks in one country but don't in another, but I can certainly claim that the idea that "it's to get oil" quite simply does not hold up to logical scrutiny. The fact that I cannot offer an exact answer regarding what the motivation leading up to a war was does not mean that I must logically accept whatever explanation someone puts forth.

So it doesn't seem hypocritical to you the US is goign after Libya for being a oppressive regime in a civil war.. While at the same time fully supporting Saudi Arabia, a country ran by a extreme islamic monarchy? Not even a sneaking suspicion why the majority of concern is placed on the Middle East just because it happens to hold a large oil supply overall? I find that hard to believe Gab, if they were there for humanitarian reasons and only that.. Things like Rwanda wouldn't have been ignored.. Things like Darfur would have been immediately pounced on.. Instead they were conviently swept under the carpet..

The Skit from Jon Stewart sums it up nicely..http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-21-2011/america-s-freedom-packages

Does it seem hypocritical? Yes. I have never claimed otherwise.

Does it seem like they did it because they wanted oil? No. That makes no sense whatsoever.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I can't claim to know what went through the minds of the political leaders who authorize attacks in one country but don't in another, but I can certainly claim that the idea that "it's to get oil" quite simply does not hold up to logical scrutiny. The fact that I cannot offer an exact answer regarding what the motivation leading up to a war was does not mean that I must logically accept whatever explanation someone puts forth.

GabuEx

So it doesn't seem hypocritical to you the US is goign after Libya for being a oppressive regime in a civil war.. While at the same time fully supporting Saudi Arabia, a country ran by a extreme islamic monarchy? Not even a sneaking suspicion why the majority of concern is placed on the Middle East just because it happens to hold a large oil supply overall? I find that hard to believe Gab, if they were there for humanitarian reasons and only that.. Things like Rwanda wouldn't have been ignored.. Things like Darfur would have been immediately pounced on.. Instead they were conviently swept under the carpet..

The Skit from Jon Stewart sums it up nicely..http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-21-2011/america-s-freedom-packages

Does it seem hypocritical? Yes. I have never claimed otherwise.

Does it seem like they did it because they wanted oil? No. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Its of strategic importance.. Not humantarian reasons...

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Surely you can not deny the amount of focus on the Middle East is far greater than say Africa where far more people have died.. Darfur and Rwanda, mass genocides unlike any of the events we have seen in places such as Libya.. Yet hardly a finger was raised, where hundreds of thousands have been/were killed.. You can't claim its to put down a unruly dictator, Gadaffi hasn't even reached a fraction to the body count of said conflicts.

GabuEx

I can't claim to know what went through the minds of the political leaders who authorize attacks in one country but don't in another, but I can certainly claim that the idea that "it's to get oil" quite simply does not hold up to logical scrutiny. The fact that I cannot offer an exact answer regarding what the motivation leading up to a war was does not mean that I must logically accept whatever explanation someone puts forth.

Yes, because Ghadafi isn't a crazy maniac.

Haha, I couldn't resist. My point is, our experience in Iraq is precisely why such reasoning would not work again. Had Iraq been a success story (and by success I mean public approval, a much weaker insurgency, and increased stability) then who knows, maybe we would have invaded Iran shortly afterward. That is not the case, however. In any case, the true motive for Western action in Libya perhaps still remains to be seen. A few years down the line and this entire situation will be made much clearer than it is today, that is for sure. The invasion of Iraq, however, is a different story and the argument that the whole thing was done for resources (namely crude oil), does hold up to logical scrutiny.major_silva

It wouldn't work again, sure. But Iran produces twice as much oil as Iraq, and Afghanistan doesn't even have any oil. You're telling me that a country, which invaded another country purely because they wanted oil, first invaded a country that doesn't have any, and then invaded a country that only has some, all while ignoring the next-door neighbor to the second country that has way, way more oil, and for which the argument that they're pursuing WMDs would've probably been easier to boot?

That doesn't logically fly.

lol Sweet!!! America will do anything to continue it's hegemoney over the other nations just waiting to get used by us.

*puts on tin foil hat*

It's like with Saddam... Bush Sr dubbed him worse than Hitler but put his "John Hancock" on a NSD clearing the path for a credit of $500 million+ to be handed to the guy he called worse than Hitler and to have stronger ties with. We give him weapons that we later claim he obtained those on his own through his terrorist alliances when he started moving in on Kuwait for various reasons that range from oil price gouging, Kuwait slant drilling into Iraq's oil field, Saddam believing Kuwait was/is historically part of Iraq etc.

He met with April Glaspie to discuss his the dispute he had and was assured that US would not intervene. Well we all know how that went....

So we promise to leave Iraq and keep Saddam in power so long as he sells his oil in US Dollars. After 7 + years of continuous American presence still in Iraq and dropping bombs left and right, did Saddam get tired and fed up with US not going through with it's word and commoditized his oil transactions into Euros in late 2000. And since America can't print Euros, we had to sell our goods and services to Europe to get the oil, and so the PetroDollar Recycling system was beginning to break down.

That was the WMD that Saddam had along in his grasp that no one was able to find, the PetroEuro.

So I suppose it's not to hard to grasp this as another oil grab

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Aku101"]

Positive externalities:

-multiplier effetcs in other countries' economies which in turns yields positive results for the US

-non-use value obtained from promoting democracy

-political clout gained from iraq campaign

these are just some of the positive externalities gained which you cannot put a dollar value on.

Economic growth always happens in the long-run even if in the short-run it does not seem like it. Easy example: tradeable pollution permits are introduced, cost-effectiveness is obtained over time with the trading of permits until MACs of all firms are equal, economic sustainability rises, PPF shifts to the right, economic growth happens in the long run.

Aku101

These multiplier effects take a while to recover a country from a war, let alone rise above the prior status-quo.

Democracy, fair point.

Political shenanigans, also a fair point.

Oil doesn't seem to be the motive.

Yes, economic growth always happens in the long run. However, the actual point of discussion is whether or not it would have been greater than other courses of action, ceteris paribus.

Getting oil from iraq all things being equal would have been impossible to do diplomatically since saddam showed that negotiations and threats are of no use since he constantly militarized against the wishes of the UN. Achieving the benefits gained from the iraq war through other courses of action is not a question of asking if a better alternative exists but rather if an alternative was even possible to achieve the same ends.

Getting oil from Iraq was already done prior to the war, and oil contracts in the region haven't been particularly U.S.-centric since. (latter info stolen from wiki, take w/ a grain of salt) Other ends better fit the serires of events.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

So it doesn't seem hypocritical to you the US is goign after Libya for being a oppressive regime in a civil war.. While at the same time fully supporting Saudi Arabia, a country ran by a extreme islamic monarchy? Not even a sneaking suspicion why the majority of concern is placed on the Middle East just because it happens to hold a large oil supply overall? I find that hard to believe Gab, if they were there for humanitarian reasons and only that.. Things like Rwanda wouldn't have been ignored.. Things like Darfur would have been immediately pounced on.. Instead they were conviently swept under the carpet..

The Skit from Jon Stewart sums it up nicely..http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-21-2011/america-s-freedom-packages

sSubZerOo

Does it seem hypocritical? Yes. I have never claimed otherwise.

Does it seem like they did it because they wanted oil? No. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Its of strategic importance.. Not humantarian reasons...

I never once said the US invaded for purely humanitarian reasons.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Surely you can not deny the amount of focus on the Middle East is far greater than say Africa where far more people have died.. Darfur and Rwanda, mass genocides unlike any of the events we have seen in places such as Libya.. Yet hardly a finger was raised, where hundreds of thousands have been/were killed.. You can't claim its to put down a unruly dictator, Gadaffi hasn't even reached a fraction to the body count of said conflicts.

LJS9502_basic

I can't claim to know what went through the minds of the political leaders who authorize attacks in one country but don't in another, but I can certainly claim that the idea that "it's to get oil" quite simply does not hold up to logical scrutiny. The fact that I cannot offer an exact answer regarding what the motivation leading up to a war was does not mean that I must logically accept whatever explanation someone puts forth.

The problem with this logic is Rwanda occured during a time where there were no wars that the security council was involved in.. It was swept under the carpet compeltely.. This is why I think when i see operations like this for "humanitarian" reasons, to be a flat out lie..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Does it seem hypocritical? Yes. I have never claimed otherwise.

Does it seem like they did it because they wanted oil? No. That makes no sense whatsoever.

GabuEx

Its of strategic importance.. Not humantarian reasons...

I never once said the US invaded for purely humanitarian reasons.

It doesn't invade for humantarian reasons.. Period.. Its merely a excuse or a justification to get the people riled up..

[QUOTE="major_silva"]Haha, I couldn't resist. My point is, our experience in Iraq is precisely why such reasoning would not work again. Had Iraq been a success story (and by success I mean public approval, a much weaker insurgency, and increased stability) then who knows, maybe we would have invaded Iran shortly afterward. That is not the case, however. In any case, the true motive for Western action in Libya perhaps still remains to be seen. A few years down the line and this entire situation will be made much clearer than it is today, that is for sure. The invasion of Iraq, however, is a different story and the argument that the whole thing was done for resources (namely crude oil), does hold up to logical scrutiny.GabuEx

It wouldn't work again, sure. But Iran produces twice as much oil as Iraq, and Afghanistan doesn't even have any oil. You're telling me that a country, which invaded another country purely because they wanted oil, first invaded a country that doesn't have any, and then invaded a country that only has some, all while ignoring the next-door neighbor to the second country that has way, way more oil, and for which the argument that they're pursuing WMDs would've probably been easier to boot?

That doesn't logically fly.

[QUOTE="Aku101"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

These multiplier effects take a while to recover a country from a war, let alone rise above the prior status-quo.

Democracy, fair point.

Political shenanigans, also a fair point.

Oil doesn't seem to be the motive.

Yes, economic growth always happens in the long run. However, the actual point of discussion is whether or not it would have been greater than other courses of action, ceteris paribus.

coolbeans90

Getting oil from iraq all things being equal would have been impossible to do diplomatically since saddam showed that negotiations and threats are of no use since he constantly militarized against the wishes of the UN. Achieving the benefits gained from the iraq war through other courses of action is not a question of asking if a better alternative exists but rather if an alternative was even possible to achieve the same ends.

Getting oil from Iraq was already done prior to the war, and oil contracts in the region haven't been particularly U.S.-centric since. (latter info stolen from wiki, take w/ a grain of salt) Other ends better fit the serires of events.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Aku101"]

Getting oil from iraq all things being equal would have been impossible to do diplomatically since saddam showed that negotiations and threats are of no use since he constantly militarized against the wishes of the UN. Achieving the benefits gained from the iraq war through other courses of action is not a question of asking if a better alternative exists but rather if an alternative was even possible to achieve the same ends.

major_silva

Getting oil from Iraq was already done prior to the war, and oil contracts in the region haven't been particularly U.S.-centric since. (latter info stolen from wiki, take w/ a grain of salt) Other ends better fit the serires of events.

Political shenanigans and/or ousting a defiant military power.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="major_silva"]Haha, I couldn't resist. My point is, our experience in Iraq is precisely why such reasoning would not work again. Had Iraq been a success story (and by success I mean public approval, a much weaker insurgency, and increased stability) then who knows, maybe we would have invaded Iran shortly afterward. That is not the case, however. In any case, the true motive for Western action in Libya perhaps still remains to be seen. A few years down the line and this entire situation will be made much clearer than it is today, that is for sure. The invasion of Iraq, however, is a different story and the argument that the whole thing was done for resources (namely crude oil), does hold up to logical scrutiny.major_silva

It wouldn't work again, sure. But Iran produces twice as much oil as Iraq, and Afghanistan doesn't even have any oil. You're telling me that a country, which invaded another country purely because they wanted oil, first invaded a country that doesn't have any, and then invaded a country that only has some, all while ignoring the next-door neighbor to the second country that has way, way more oil, and for which the argument that they're pursuing WMDs would've probably been easier to boot?

That doesn't logically fly.

First of all, I never claimed oil was the sole existing reason, only that it is the main one. Secondly, as was stated earlier in the thread, the action in Afghanistan was needed as a pretext to the invasion of Iraq. Not only that, but Afghanistan was a hotbed of Taliban an al-Qaeda activity, and they need to be stopped for logical reasons. Third, Iran's nuclear program (and public Western knowledge thereof) was in a very juvenile stage compared to where it is today. Finally, Iran's military was still vastly superior to Iraq's, and Ahmedinejad was thought to be considerably less crazy than Saddam Hussein. Now what isn't logical about that?

Considering that Bush placed Iran along with Iraq and North Korea in the axis of evil and that the Iranian leadership has been thought of as crazy since, like, forever, that explanation does not take into account reality, for one thing. Your only valid statement is that Iran's military was superior to Iraq's, which comes back to the idea that the US didn't take their oil just because it's hard, which sounds like an awfully weak justification. And there's also the fact that they could have just, um, bought the oil for a fraction of the price of the war.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Its of strategic importance.. Not humantarian reasons...

sSubZerOo

I never once said the US invaded for purely humanitarian reasons.

It doesn't invade for humantarian reasons.. Period.. Its merely a excuse or a justification to get the people riled up..

You seem to be arguing against a phantom argument that I have not made.

You claimed that the justification used to invade Iraq could have been used to invade Iran, and that is patently false. Bush can put Iran inside his Axis of Evil as many times as he wants, this does not change the fact that America's public iron sights were set on Saddam at the time. Ahmedinejad has not been thought of as crazy since forever as you seem to think, and the United States has only claimed Iran is building nuclear weapons since... 2003, the same year our Iraq adventure started. You also forget that the Bush administration tried numerous times to link Iraq with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the attacks on 9/11, something which, had it been targeted at Iran, would have made it more difficult for the public to swallow. "And there's also the fact that they could have just, um, bought the oil for a fraction of the price of the war." That is not how the world works.

Edit: I forgot to mention that Ahmedinejad has only been in power since 2005.

[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.

xaos

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

You try too hard.

"And there's also the fact that they could have just, um, bought the oil for a fraction of the price of the war." That is not how the world works.major_silva

Please do elaborate.

You claimed that the justification used to invade Iraq could have been used to invade Iran, and that is patently false. Bush can put Iran inside his Axis of Evil as many times as he wants, this does not change the fact that America's public iron sights were set on Saddam at the time. Ahmedinejad has not been thought of as crazy since forever as you seem to think, and the United States has only claimed Iran is building nuclear weapons since... 2003, the same year our Iraq adventure started. You also forget that the Bush administration tried numerous times to link Iraq with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the attacks on 9/11, something which, had it been targeted at Iran, would have made it more difficult for the public to swallow.major_silva

Uh, wait, what? The public's "iron sights" were set on Saddam because the Bush administration put them there.

And there's also the fact that they could have just, um, bought the oil for a fraction of the price of the war."

That is not how the world works.major_silva

Actually, it pretty much is. We were importing more oil from Iraq before we invaded than after we invaded.

And there's also the fact that they could have just, um, bought the oil for a fraction of the price of the war.

GabuEx

It amazes me how many "US is so evil, they want to rule the world and bathe in their oil" conspiracy theorists don't take into account what is bolded above. People say we went into Iraq just for their oil, yet with all the supposed power the US has they could have just pressured the UN into lifting sanctions so they could buy it outright at a fraction of the cost of invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

I'll be the first person to say we're not perfect. But after three trips to the desert, I can say from personal experience that Iraq wasn't Disneyland before 2003. I never been to Libya but considering the fact that the US didn't even take the lead in the war (the French fired the first shots) I find it hard to believe so many people here once again are claiming we are only there for their oil.

I wouldnt be surprised if it was a FACTOR...

But my god we dont need to spread our troops out this much... they are in Iraq, afganistan, libya, and other places unbelievable

we CANT POLICE THE WORLD. This is unbelievable..

[QUOTE="major_silva"]You claimed that the justification used to invade Iraq could have been used to invade Iran, and that is patently false. Bush can put Iran inside his Axis of Evil as many times as he wants, this does not change the fact that America's public iron sights were set on Saddam at the time. Ahmedinejad has not been thought of as crazy since forever as you seem to think, and the United States has only claimed Iran is building nuclear weapons since... 2003, the same year our Iraq adventure started. You also forget that the Bush administration tried numerous times to link Iraq with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the attacks on 9/11, something which, had it been targeted at Iran, would have made it more difficult for the public to swallow.GabuEx

Uh, wait, what? The public's "iron sights" were set on Saddam because the Bush administration put them there.

And there's also the fact that they could have just, um, bought the oil for a fraction of the price of the war."

That is not how the world works.major_silva

Actually, it pretty much is. We were importing more oil from Iraq before we invaded than after we invaded.

You claimed that the justification used to invade Iraq could have been used to invade Iran, and that is patently false. Bush can put Iran inside his Axis of Evil as many times as he wants, this does not change the fact that America's public iron sights were set on Saddam at the time. Ahmedinejad has not been thought of as crazy since forever as you seem to think, and the United States has only claimed Iran is building nuclear weapons since... 2003, the same year our Iraq adventure started. You also forget that the Bush administration tried numerous times to link Iraq with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the attacks on 9/11, something which, had it been targeted at Iran, would have made it more difficult for the public to swallow. "And there's also the fact that they could have just, um, bought the oil for a fraction of the price of the war." That is not how the world works.

Edit: I forgot to mention that Ahmedinejad has only been in power since 2005.

major_silva