What Should Be Obama's Next Move Concerning Libya?

Libya has oil????? Do the Libyans know this????? Does France know this???? Italy?????

 

2% of the worlds known reserves.

 

...of light sweet crude (the easiest to refine).

 

You mean if they had broccoli fields instead of oil fields, we wouldn't get involved???? I'm shocked.

 

You mean we might be there because they are in the top 10 in oil reserves when Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, Sudan, etc are not?

 

Awwwwww, Moen.. that sounds so cynical! Obama said he was going into Libya to help those poor, poor Libyan civilians. I have no reason to disbelieve our beloved leader. Surely, you're not saying that his heart pumps sweet crude! He's in Libya on purely humanitarian reasons, don't ya know... I think he may be gearing up for Syria next.. then I think Bahrain is on his agenda along with all the rest of those poor, downtrodden Middle Eastern countries.

 

It doesn't really matter who is in the White House. As long as the oil industry can convince us that their interests are our national interests, then we have no choice but to put our countries military resourses behind them. Heck, I have no doubt Right wingers already see oil as a patriotic pursuit. It really has nothing to do with patriotism, democracy, or our national interests.

 

I see we have the whole circus involved in this thread. If the primary concern of the United States and the other nations of the coalition was the oil supply of Libya, they would have backed Khaddafi and let him slaughter his own people. Khaddafi in power preserves the status quo and ensures the future of uninterrupted oil production from Libya. Saying that the decision to use military force in Libya is a red herring.

Furthermore Moen, oil has everything to do with the national interests of the United States. You have shown in the past that you don't understand a thing about our economy. After all, you were the guy who claimed our economy would collapse without international arm sales. The price of oil has a dramatic impact on the rest of the economy. Last time I checked, improving the economy is in our national interest.

 

It is not about whether Gadfly is in charge or not. It is about the infrastructure and drops in production. Leaving Gadfly in charge was not a problem before obviously. But guess where a big part of the oil infrastructure is fed through? The rebel strongholds where the fighting is. Heard of the city of Benghazi in all of this? Guess what was happening right before everyone decided to step in...production there had dropped to about 1/10 of normal. Many oil fields were having to stop production because the areas where they feed into is where the fighting has been. Which is why we really don't care if Gadfly goes or not and why that is not part of the mandate.

 

If we didn't intervene, Khaddafi's forces would have exterminated the rebels and oil production would have resumed to normal levels as soon as any damage was repaired. Therefore, if we were interested in oil stability, we should have backed Khaddafi and stayed out of it.

 

Doubtful it would have been quite that simple. A prolonged insurrection and fighting would be more likely and possibly severe damage to the infrastructure as the rebels, I am sure, are well aware of where they are fighting and the damage to the regime that crippling the oil revenues would do. After all, the rebels have already set up a new oil company to control the oil. If they had their backs to the wall instead, it doesn't take much imagination to figure they would have slashed and burned.

This is what was being predicted before we intervened:

“We expect Libyan production to be shut down completely and we might lose sweet crudes from Libya for a prolonged period of time,” Bank of America Merrill Lynch analyst Sabine Schels told Reuters.

Hmmmmm.

And we couldn't back Gadfly in any scenario. He is a celebrity dictator. Too well known to try and pass off on the public as someone they should get behind and support.

 

Did you even watch the situation in that country? Khaddafi's forces marched right across the country with very little resistance. If they would have been able to invade Benghazi, the resistance would have been over. You can believe all you want that the rebels would have been able to put up a prolonged insurrection. The truth is that Khaddafi's forces would have killed everybody in their path, rebel, civilian, or other. They all would have died and he would have taken complete control of Libya. This is not an organized military rebel force. These people are civilians who were simple protesters and are now being called rebels. Most don't have military training and they not well equipped.

As for the prediction of the banker, I remember both CNN and Fox both reporting that the opposition was poised to win their freedom. A few days after, Khaddafi took the gloves off, and both were predicting the fall of the opposition was only a matter of time.

Lastly, when I said back Khaddafi, all I meant was, don't get involved. If we were solely interested in oil production, we should not have taken military action against Libya. Do you dispute that?

 

Yes I do dispute that because I tend to believe the professional analysts who were predicting a long shut off of the oil coming out of that county over your theories on how the rebels would have been destroyed in one effort.

As has been shown in many countries, it is just not that easy to eliminate a force like that. The rebels were more than smart enough to wage the battle over the resources. And they still are. The 2 cities in the headlines on CNN last night where the battles are? Major oil cities.

This is an area of Libya that is more than familiar with terrorist tactics and terrorist organizations Attacking the cities would have been something entirely different than squashing the rebels. Even if you have bought into the administrations story, I am surprised you can't see that.

 

No, it is rather easy to eliminate a force like that when your intention is to kill everybody. If you don't believe that was Khaddafi's intention, then you are much more optimistic than I. I wonder if the professional analysts would have changed their prediction if the genocide was allowed to happen.

 

Well, I listened to the Fearless Leader's speech tonight and I didn't hear one mention of oil. So, Moen, according to Obama you're wrong. Or is Obama lying?

 

I fell asleep during the speech. What happened after he thanked the members of the military?

I find it comical that the democrats on this forum are accusing a democratic President of serving the will of the oil industry.

 

Is it accusation of just reality Lehigh? Unfortunately, as corrupt as they may be, we need those in the oil industry. Reality rears it's ugly head
It's no more comical than a right winger saying Obama is correct to approve bombing for humanitarian reasons.

 

There is absolutely no reality to it at all. It is a red herring. Libya represents only 2-3% of the world oil supply and the other oil producing nations can easily increase their production levels to compensate for the loss. And the US imports less than 10% of Libya's oil production. Ary you so cynical in life to think that the invasion was not for humanitarian reasons? The President went on TV and told the entire world that he took this course of action for the exact same humanitarian reasons that I have previously stated in this thread. Are you (a democrat) calling your own President a liar?

Furthermore, I have already shown that invading Libya would do more harm than good to Libya's oil production. That is unless you believe Stujoe's fantasy about these civilians everyone is calling rebels having the ability to fight a long protracted guerilla war against a far superior military force that has no concern about killing civilians. The entire success of guerilla warfare relies on the ability to hide amongst civilians. Khaddafi would have killed everybody, not just those he could prove were part of the rebellion. Or do you subscribe to Khaddafi's theory that the rebels are actually well trained muslim extremist terrorists (Al-queda) who are trying to seize control of his country?

You showed up in this thread, so make a point. Show any evidence that the invasion of Libya was motivated by something other than humanitarian reasons. Or don't and join the ever expanding circus posse that is the membership of this forum.

 

Well Boris or Natasha, that is a false dichotomy. Not mentioning something doesn't eliminate it from the possibility nor does omitting it make one a liar.

On the other hand, maybe everybody is lying and they are all out to get you.

 

When the entire purpose of the speech is to provide an explanation for actions taken, omitting the primary reason (according to you) would make him a liar. Don't worry though, he wasn't lying, you are just wrong.