So once again we were "successful",

[MadHound]

"Successful" in meddling with another oil producing country's politics.

Face it, the only reason that France, England and the US backed the rebels is because of the oil that Libya has. One has but to look at examples like Syria and Tunisia to see that.

We have, once again, proved that we're not so much about spreading democracy, or being the good guy, but instead an empire bent on conquering countries with natural resources that we need.

Sure, we sometimes put up a good front on our motives, and once in a great while, we actually accomplish some good by removing vicious ruler from power.

But make no mistake, this country doesn't act out of altruism, or the desire to do good. It acts out of cold blooded calculation: Will this action help the US? How can we play this situation in order to maximize our own good? And finally, how much does this benefit the MIC at home.

Yes, it is nice that Gadhafi is on his way out of power. But as we've seen before, just so long as the US gets a good deal out of this, we won't give a damn if another tyrant sets up shop in his place. We're not about freeing people and spreading democracy. The US is an empire, and the good of the empire is always coming first.

It was, and is, all about oil, oil and empire.

[secondwind]

1. Did the people rise up because of the oil? This was a genuine uprising. n/t

[pinboy3niner]

2. +1

I discovered recently that one of the most severe critics of UN/NATO intervention--and he IS severe--acknowledges that the uprising was a legitimate expression of the Libyan people, and that NATO et al came late to the party. So much for the "CIA-instigated" revolution.

[joshcryer]

4. Ha, you gotta send me a link to that. So much negitivity these days.

I frankly even admitted I hope Libya strained NATO and made NATO fall and change, and it appears that it's doing that to an extent.

[pinboy3niner]

11. Your wish is my command

Somebody posted the link last night, I think. I can't be sure, as you know how our project tends to blur things--and may even cause us to post the wrong day in a new dateline. :rofl:

Sorry, Josh, I just couldn't resist. :rofl:


In all seriousness, though, this is the item to which I referred. Link:

The Real News: NATO Tries to Control Libyan Revolution

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=7187

[joshcryer]

13. Today is Monday right?

:rofl:

You'll never let me live that down. :P

edit: thanks for the link btw! :hi: watching now, have to go soon!

[pinboy3niner]

14. Well, finally you're catching on

Took you long enough. :rofl:

[joshcryer]

17. You're might call *me* "crazy" this time (sorry about that btw!), but I agree with this guy!

I mean, really, he's fully correct. The contracts shouldn't be renegotiated and the Libyan people need to keep a keen eye on this. His criticisms of the selling of weapons to Gaddafi, and so on. Yeah, I'm a freaking bleeding heart uber extreme left wing liberal.

What the NTC is not getting is credit for at least trying to go about it that way. The draft constitution nationalizes "the resources of Libya for all" right there in the text (I personally pined for that idea, but I never expected them to actually propose it!).

I think the Libyan people are intelligent people and they are not going to let western interests (oil contractors and the like) give them a raw deal, if a deal is made it'll be fair and they're not going to renegotiate, say, the oil contracts so that they wind up screwing themselves.

edit: btw thanks again for that fascinating link, that guy surely is a truly interesting guy with having a purely anti-NATO perspective and being fully for the rebellion. I can't say I disagree with him at all, so maybe I'm more left than you thought! :P

[pinboy3niner]

26. You're so Left...

...you have a tiny broom just to sweep the street dust picked up in your left sideburn.

(Okay, so it's not Jay Leno material. It was the best I could do on the spur of the moment.)

[MadHound]

21. Where did I say that the revolt in Libya was "CIA instigated"?

Oh, that's right, I didn't.

[pinboy3niner]

71. The comment was not directed at your post

It was a general reference to the charge made frequently, here and elsewhere, that the Libyan uprising was engineered and orchestrated by the CIA.

Sorry for any confusion.

[MadHound]

18. No, but we intervened because of oil.

We participated in the killing of innocents because of oil.

[joshcryer]

3. Your premise would be true if we didn't try to help in Burma where 50k people were killed.

[MadHound]

20. Has the US sent the military to Burma?

No.

Big difference between sanctions and aiding an armed uprising.

[joshcryer]

83. No, China and Russia vetoed the Burma R2P actions.

[lunatica]

5. Democracies sitting on top of our oil in their countries aren't easy to manipulate

It's much easier to manipulate one Dictator than a whole bunch of elected officials.

[quaker bill]

10. True, which is why we have had many "client" dictators

throughout the world. Generally, throw a couple 100 million in new military toys at them and you can have all the oil you want. Kleptocracies need military toys to maintain control of the revenue stream. This President is going the other way, blowing up the pile of toys so the people can control the revenue stream. Bottom line, regardless of who runs the place, oil is only a revenue stream if you pump it and sell it. It is generally much cheaper to buy it than conquer it.

[MadMaddie]

72. Bingo!

That is exactly why Ghaddfy, Mobarak and other dictators were not removed during the previous adminsitration. Junior and Darth had stakes in the oil and gas industry and they were not going to compromise that $$.

Like President Obama or not, he does not have those stakes in that industry so he can act on what he believes is right.

[bvar22]

74. Like all those "elected" officials in Iraq.

The Iraqi Oil now belongs to the Global Oil Corporations.
(SEE: The Iraqi Oil Law)

[aquart]

6. Oh, good grief.

PEOPLE DIED. We damn well better have a decent excuse. Our own survival works for me.

[MadHound]

23. Ah, so you're down with intervening in any oil or resource producing state in the world.

Guess what, you're in good company with people like Bush, Nixon, Bush the Elder, etc. etc.

Notice, we don't intervene in countries that don't have resources we covet.

[aquart]

34. Don't we? It's called COMMERCE. We throw in the guns.

Are you insisting we intervene in countries where we have no economic interest whatsoever? For how many decades would you like to feed the starving of Somalia?

[MadHound]

39. So what are you saying,

That we shouldn't feed the starving in Somalia?

What I'm saying is that our foreign policy is lacking in consistency. We only help those who are of value to the US, namely those who have resource we can exploit. The rest of the world can go rot as far as we're concerned.

[quaker bill]

7. We already had the oil.

The President promised that if the people rose up to overthrow dictators, we would back them up. What this President did not do was sit on his hands the way GHWB did in Iraq when Saddam slaughtered the folks of the "southern uprising".

I am no fan of war, but I am less a fan of leading folks toward revolt and then sitting back and watching while they get slaughtered with cold war weapons stockpiles that we and the Soviets stupidly scattered all over the planet. We now have the technology to quickly take out lines of Soviet era T55s and T72s, which while pretty out of date, can still kill alot of relatively unarmed people. Dictators prop themselves up in various places through control of these massive stockpiles. Removing these stockpiles is a good thing, and the fewer people killed in the process the better.

[MadHound]

25. Actually we don't "scatter" weapons over the world

We sell them to various states, irregardless of the morality of that state. Such sales will later give us an excuse to go in for "regime change" and to create even more fearsome weapons with the taxpayer dollar.

Meanwhile, in countries that are seeing popular uprisings, but are unfortunately not located on top of natural resources, how much US intervention do you see? Places like Syria, Somalia, Rwanda, etc.

Oh, that's right, none.

[sabrina 1]

73. Please do not insult the people of Egypt and Tunisia

by attempting to give one iota of credit to this country for what they did, the sacrifices they made to topple the regime that was supported by this country right up and by this administration. Mubarak, in the words of Biden, Clinton and Obama was 'close friend and ally' of the American people, right up to the point where it became obvious the US could NOT convince the Egyptian people to keep him any longer.

While Mubarak was operating his torture chambers, and we were sending 'detainees' to be tortured there btw, Biden and his wife were calling him a great friend, almost like family.

Egyptians toppled their dictatorship IN SPITE of the US. Same thing with our good friend and ally in Tunisia, Ben Ali. And then we tried to install one of the world's #1 Torturers in Egypt as an 'temporory' leader, Soleiman. Fortunately the Egyptians were familiar with his close ties the US Military and rejected him. Hopefully he will pay for his crimes also.

And when Hillary Clinton visited Egypt after the fall of the regime, Egytian youth groups who helped topple Mubarak, refused to meet with her 'because of her and this administration's among others back through the decades, support for their brutal dictator. They asked for a formal apology from this administration to the people of Egypt. So far, I don't think they got it although we are still there trying to interefere again in their affairs.

There is no need to rewrite history. The history has already been written and the people of Egypt find it abhorrent when Americans attempt to take credit for their victory over an American ally who brutalized them for decades with the approval of every administration, including this one. Same thing with Tunisia.

What we need to be doing is to end US policy of supporting dicators period. But that is a long way off I'm afraid. Currently eg, we are supporting one of the world's worst dictators in Uzbekistan. Explain that if you can.

[Amonester]

84. Relations between countries are not just one-sided.

For instance, there are many Egyptians who aren't connected in any ways with any of this (casual domains like tourism, for perhaps the most simple example) who certainly want to exercise commercial relations with the United States, and somehow need assistance from both goverment's specialized agencies or departments.

When Egypt was ruled by a dictatorship, which other route could they have taken? They had no other options.

Those kind of things are never all bad or all good, depending on the needs of the moment. Some traders want to do such and such, industrials want to do such and such, then another group wants something else, and so on. International relations aren't just one-sided and should not be considered black and white issues.

[sabrina 1]

88. Well, I never said that Egypt would not or is not continuing to

engage with the US on trade etc. But now they are doing it as a people who have some say in their government. Although it will take a lot more time to get the true freedom they are still fighting for.

But as far as things not being all bad or all good, this is true. However things are a lot more bad than good when your country is run by a dictatorship. And when that dictator is supported by a super power, there is not much you can do to change things in your own country, as the Egyptians, the Tunisians, the Uzbeks and so many others whose dictators the US has empowered over the decades, could tell you. Those who survived the attempts, that is.

And if the Egyptians want an apology, I think it should be given to them. After all, many of their loved ones have died, have been tortured and imprisoned, their best and brightest exiled all the while the US helped prop up the Mubarak regime.

They are not asking that the US not trade with them, but to acknowledge the injustices they endured with the help of the US. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. Sometimes it helps when you have been abused to hear someone say 'I'm sorry'. I can say that from personal experience, and sometimes that's all you want. Not revenge, just acknowledgement of the wrongs done after so long a period of being denied that acknowledgement. But to do that, the US would have to have evolved way beyond the stage we are still at, where we do not care much for the civilian lives destroyed by our actions.

[closeupready]

8. Sometimes that's true, but in Libya's case, many DID support a revolution there

much as the US did hundreds of years ago. There's something exciting about watching people collectively take back their societies.

[joshcryer]

12. 21 of the 25 largest cities rose up. They were naive thinking Gaddafi would cede, I think.

I think that they felt that because they were squeezed between two other countries that rose up (Tunisia and Egypt) they felt they had a chance...

[MadHound]

27. So is Syria "exciting"? What about Rwanda?

Or is the edge off the excitement when those countries in revolt aren't located on top of a treasure trove of natural resources?

[closeupready]

37. Syria is exciting, because Assad is going to lose, and future Syrians

are likely to have more opportunities in life than they do now.

I hope you're not implying, as another prolific member here did recently, that I am sadistic or enjoy snuff films and violence? If so, please just come out and say that, so that I can put you on ignore, as I did the other one.

[MadHound]

41. I'm not interested in your personal peccadilloes,

I'm simply pointing out the fact that the US only intervenes in countries where there is a vested interest in our doing so, ie resources.

[closeupready]

47. You're promoting a one-sided view of this issue, and neglecting to recognize that sometimes, our sup

support is not just for selfish reasons, but for MANY reasons, some of which have nothing to do with profit or materialistic gain.

[MadHound]

48. Really?

Point out one instance of major military intervention on our part that didn't result in material benefit for the US.

Iraq, oil, Afghanistan, natural gas, rare earths, Libya, oil, Vietnam, oil and other resources, not to mention a thirty year gravy train for the MIC, on and on it goes

One, just one.

[closeupready]

49. Miss the point much? Are you saying you supported Qadaffi? And if you did NOT support him,

does that then mean you only supported Libyans for the materialistic gain the US economy will realize as a result?

This black/white thinking you are pushing is sad and wrong.

[MadHound]

51. No, but nice attempt at twisting my words.

What I am saying is that the US only gets involved in these revolutions, uprisings, civil wars, etc. when it only directly benefits the US.

There is a revolution going on in Syria, one that is just as valid as that in Libya. But where is the US? Oh, yeah, that's right, unlike Libya, Syria has no oil.

Stop trying to twist my words to fit your viewpoint.

[closeupready]

52. Taiwan has oil?

Who knew?

[MadHound]

53. Have we had a major military intervention in Taiwan?

No, we supply Taiwan with sporadic arms shipments and once in a great while cruise a fleet of ours in the area. Not so much though anymore, since China has become much more important to our economic future.

[closeupready]

56. I like how you play this from both sides of the deck. I'm done here.

nt

[PufPuf23]

55. Syria also has a Russian Naval Base.

Qadaffi's agenda included:

1. Diversify market by reduced crude sales to the West and selling to China, India, and Russia.

2. Russia was negotiating a naval basing agreement with Libya so as to have two Naval bases on the Mediterranean.

3. Strengthening the African Union by a common currency and market.

GWB, Blair, et al had normalized relations with Qadaffi over the "WOT".

[muriel_volestrangler]

77. Syria does have oil

UK minister cautious on Syrian oil sanctions

Britain has not yet decided whether to back proposed EU sanctions on Syrian oil, and is wary of measures that could hurt the Syrian people more than President Bashar al-Assad, a junior foreign minister said on Saturday.

The United States imposed an oil embargo on Syria on Thursday in protest against Assad's crackdown on civil unrest that the United Nations says has killed around 2,000 people.

But the European Union has taken a more incremental approach on sanctions. It agreed on Friday to expand the number of Syrian officials and institutions targeted, deferring discussion of an oil embargo until next week.
...
EU countries such as Sweden have been more supportive of an embargo on Syrian oil. Europe is a major consumer of Syrian oil exports, which are an important source of revenue for Assad's government.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/20/syria-britain-idUSL5E7JK0A320110820

[MadHound]

78. Syria produces nearly three times less oil than the state of Texas,

It derives relatively little revenue from oil. See post 65 for links to figures.

[Waiting For Everyman]

9. Yes, how could we stoop so low as to "meddle" with Gaddafi?

He's so legit, and all. :sarcasm:

Come on, now. Just how preposterous can this get? Some situations are gray areas, this one certainly is not.

[MadHound]

28. So again, the question is why aren't we in Syria? Somalia? Rwanda?

Funny, the only countries the US goes into are those countries with bountiful natural resources.

[Waiting For Everyman]

54. If we can't do everything, how dare we do anything? n/t

[MadHound]

64. Better question,

How come we do something only for countries that sit on top of vast repositories of natural resources.

[ZombieHorde]

66. Don't think it is strange we seem to only use our military lately when the country has oil?

Is that just a coincidence we should just ignore?

[PVnRT]

60. If we intervened in any of those places

you'd be complaining about imperialism and whatnot just as loudly as you are now. Quit being disingenuous.

[MadHound]

63. Really, how do you know what I would do?

You don't, you are just assuming that since I'm being critical of this, I would be critical of anything. You're wrong.

[TBF]

15. It's always about the oil, but this may not be over -

Seif al-Islam, Gadhafi's son is back in town and dynamics are quickly changing -

TRIPOLI, Libya — The euphoria that followed the rebels’ triumphant march in Tripoli gave way to confusion, wariness and renewed fighting on Tuesday as Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi remained at large, his son Seif al-Islam made a surprise appearance at a hotel with foreign journalists, and loyalist units stubbornly resisted rebel efforts to take control of the capital.

Seif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, whom the rebels claimed to have captured Sunday, appeared Tuesday at the Rixos Hotel in Tripoli.

Reporters in Tripoli said that after an uneasy calm on Monday, the crackle of gunfire and the rumble of explosions spread across the city on Tuesday. Billows of smoke rose above several districts and news reports said some of the heaviest clashes took place around Colonel Qaddafi’s compound.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/24/world/africa/24libya.html?hp

[Ikonoklast]

16. Please tell me how Libya's oil wasn't available for purchase on the world market first.

Your basic premise is flawed from the very start.

Oil is a fungible commodity; once it is sold on the open market, it goes wherever the purchaser wishes it to go.

And for the most part, that place was Europe, not North America.

[MadHound]

29. Tell me then, why aren't we supporting uprisings in countries like Syria?

How come NATO and the US aren't cranking out the Cruise missiles to help the people of Somalia, or Rwanda?

Amazing how quickly we come to the aid of some, yet don't come to the aid of others. Why is that?

Oh, yeah, oil and natural resources.

[PVnRT]

61. 2.5 billion barrels crude, 240 billion cubic meters of natural gas

They are the largest producer of both in the eastern Mediterranean. No, it's not Saudi numbers, but you can stop with the "but they don't have oil!" nonsense.

[MadHound]

65. A bit misleading there, aren't you

That is 2.5 billion barrels in their reserves, ie in the ground. They produce 385,000 bbls/day, nearly three times less than the production rate of Texas. Furthermore, their gas is used either for enhanced oil recovery or domestic energy production, they don't export it.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Syria#Energy>
<http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/data/production/oilwellcounts.php>

Speaking of being disingenuous.

My contention stands, despite the way you're trying to twist facts.

[TomClash]

19. From the comments, this post seems to be receiving nothing but criticism

Except basically it's true. Whether the uprising began as a genuine opposition to Qaddafi is largely irrelevant. US/NATO intervention was driven by oil. The US has no real national interest in Libyan democracy, assuming its ever comes. Indeed, don't surprised to see another Iraq with similar military tactics. Look at the Brent North Sea crude price decline and the increase in share price of oil companies like Total. Look at the MI6/CIA paramilitary support on the ground. And that's just for starters.

[closeupready]

24. That could be said to be true of EVERY revolution we ever supported. And conversely,

of every established power structure we ever supported.

Virtually every place on Earth has some kind of strategic position or resource of value to the United States.

[TomClash]

36. Yes, and the United States adjusts its strategy . . .

. . . and consequently its propaganda, to suit its strategic needs. Mostly, that means energy and markets.

It has little to do with the heroic struggle of the Libyan people against a dictator.

[closeupready]

38. The United States is not a person; it is a group of people, all with different agendas and

aims, and the way to achieve those aims is pull together when opportunities arise. That's what you see happening now.

That there are some who only seek to profit materialistically does NOT corrupt those who support revolution there for idealistic reasons.

[TomClash]

58. Actually it does

The ideals provide a convenient prop for plunder, profit and power.

Obviously, when I say US I mean its foreign policy/ruling class structure.

[closeupready]

59. Actually, no it does not. At least, not just because you say so. That's all you have.

"Convenient prop" does NOT equal "exploiting stupid stooge hippies". Anymore than some here who are firmly progressive AND registered Democrats are exploited by the DLC/Third Way puketards.

[TomClash]

69. That analogy takes hallucinogens to understand

Yelling "freedom"and cheering "uprising" does not make you a revolutionary or an idealist or righteous. It might make you responsible for many dead though. If you were ever in battle you know what I mean.

[closeupready]

70. Wow. Your thoughts are so disconnected from reality ... have I entered a space/time warp?

Are you from another universe? :D :hi: (I'm not even gonna ask for your thoughts about Jane Fonda. I believe I already know.)

Whatever. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Peace to you.

[TomClash]

76. We may see things differently but

we are still on the same side and want a better world. That's good enough for me. :toast: :hi:

[closeupready]

86. Back at ya. :-)

:toast:

[OHdem10]

22. The UK and France started this and asked us to be an ally.

This is why the Republicans are being such jerks and
are almost refuse to give Obama any credit.

This was a British/French Operation. Of course the
American Media especially Fox never cover it this way.

[MadHound]

30. Except for the fact that we provided air support, missile support,

The majority of the intelligence, and the majority of the money to make this war run. Other than that, nah, we were barely involved:eyes:

[Spider Jerusalem]

31. Who's "we"? The Libyan people, or at least quite a significant number of them...

were engaged in active rebellion against a repressive dictatorship; the UN cited "responsibility to protect" to authorise use of military force by NATO (after the UK and France went to the security council, the US was none too keen at first). This is the same "Responsibility to protect" that a lot of people have been calling for the UN to employ since Srebrenica, remember that? Humanitarian disaster, thousands killed. Might not have happened if Western powers had stepped in earlier, but they didn't. Qaffadi was prepared to use the same sort of force against the rebels; the joint NATO operation has prevented it from happening. And since the initial airstrikes and the imposition of the no fly zone, US military participation has been scaled back to consist now of ONE US Navy frigate. The present US military contribution to the NATO effort is less than Canada's. Most of the air and naval forces come from the UK and France.

[MadHound]

33. And where is this same support for countries that are in revolt,

But aren't sitting on top of a well of oil? Countries like Syria, Somalia, Rwanda, etc.

Oh, that's right, they don't have access to a pile of natural resources, so they don't get the same sort of attention that countries that are blessed with oil do.

And don't fool yourself about US involvement. We're providing most of the intelligence and money for this operation.

[PVnRT]

62. Uh-huh. Prove those numbers

"We're providing most of the intelligence and money for this operation."

Maybe you could provide some evidence of this instead of just continuing to pretend that you want to intervene in Somalia and Syria.

[MadHound]

67. OK, here you are

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/22/nato-libya-data-journalism-operations-country#zoomed-picture>

Most money, men, material. Also providing all the satellite intelligence and drone intelligence.

Any other questions?

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. Why do you keep on claiming there's a revolt in Rwanda?

There's no fighting, revolt or uprising going on there now. They're even contributing to UN peacekeeping forces elsewhere:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/UN-peacekeeper-dies-after-attack-Officials/Article1-736832.aspx

Are you confusing it with what happened in the 90s?

[MadHound]

80. Using its past as an example of our lack of action,

Just like I've used the examples of Vietnam, etc. What, I have to be current on my examples? This is how you're trying to ding my argument? Weak.

[muriel_volestrangler]

85. Your persistent use of the present tense and grouping with Syria and Somalia made you look ignorant

Notice the one time you mentioned Vietnam, you said "didn't", as opposed to:

"Meanwhile, in countries that are seeing popular uprisings, but are unfortunately not located on top of natural resources, how much US intervention do you see? Places like Syria, Somalia, Rwanda, etc."

"So is Syria "exciting"? What about Rwanda?"

"why aren't we in Syria? Somalia? Rwanda?"

"Tell me then, why aren't we supporting uprisings in countries like Syria?

How come NATO and the US aren't cranking out the Cruise missiles to help the people of Somalia, or Rwanda? "

"And where is this same support for countries that are in revolt,

But aren't sitting on top of a well of oil? Countries like Syria, Somalia, Rwanda, etc. "

Yes, when you continually claim there is an uprising in Rwanda, link it with 2 countries where there is current fighting/an uprising, and use words like 'meanwhile', you look completely ignorant of world affairs. You also still seem ignorant of the influence of what happened in Rwanda with the whole 'responsibility to protect' movement, which was significantly influenced by the failure of western countries to act in Rwanda. The point is that we shouldn't stand aside when one side in a conflict announces its intention to massacre the other, including non-combatants.

FYI: http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spanone]

35. 'good deal' ? has a deal been struck? link?

[MadHound]

43. Umm, please put those two words in context.

"But as we've seen before, just so long as the US gets a good deal out of this, we won't give a damn if another tyrant sets up shop in his place."

Don't believe me, go look at our history in Iran, South America, Saudi Arabia, etc.

[jpak]

40. blah blah blah

yup

[MadHound]

44. Here you are,

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzkxSyeTtNM>

[Bigmack]

42. Meddling is meddling... who died and made us god..?...

“I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar soaked fingers out of the business of these (Third World) nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own. And if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the `haves' refuse to share with the `have-nots' by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don’t want and above all don’t want crammed down their throats by Americans.'”–
Gen. David Shoup, United States Marine Commandant Medal of Honor recipient. 2 Purple Hearts (Gen Shoup was my Commandant during the first part of my time in.)

[LanternWaste]

45. How many oil derricks has the United States constructed...?

I'd argue that the Libyan people were successful rather than the US or Great Britain.


However, you position does appear to beg the question: How many oil derricks has the United States constructed in the former states of Yugoslavia?

(The Balkans: Nationalism, War & the Great Powers, by Glenny)

[MadHound]

50. Here,

<http://www.balkans.com/open-news.php?uniquenumber=108415>
<http://bosnianews.blogspot.com/2008/06/five-oil-fields-identified-in-bosnia.html>
<http://www.oilvoice.com/n/Ascent_Resources_Announces_Slovenian_Exploration_Project_Farmout/19b205fbf.aspx>

And that's just a brief search

[LanternWaste]

57. Seems that the direct benefit to the U.S. is less than the cost of the conflict.

Seems that the direct benefit to the U.S. is quite a bit less than the cost of the conflict. It appears that your position that only an aggregate positive cost/benefit analysis is the lynch pin of contemporary conflicts is rather flawed. :shrug:

I also realize that an absolute and dogmatic mind allows no possibilities outside of the narrow constraints of imagination, and often uses the fallacy of post hoc ergo prompter hoc for support. Seems many Sunday morning televangelists follow that same path. :shrug:

[MadHound]

68. Oh of course such actions don't benefit the US per se,

But they do benefit the oil corporations a great deal. The same oil corporations who've been putting pliable candidates into high office and writing favorable legislation for decades now. They don't have to bear the burden of such actions, the taxpayers do. But they certainly reap the rewards.

[bvar22]

75. Was the direct benefit less than the cost in Iraq? Adfghanistan?

You bet your ASS it was.
But the handful of Global Corporations benefited IMMENSELY.
DUH!

[Safetykitten]

46. Nice post. I wonder what country will be next on our list.

[rucky]

81. Now, onto the Sudan!

mass graves found. in a few thousand years they may turn to oil deposits, so we should stake our claim right away.

[sabrina 1]

90. The Sudan, unfortunately for them, did discover oil

sometime in the 'nineties, I believe. So, I'll have to check if they are on the PNAC list, as Libya was. And if I were Sudanese, I would be checking that list also.

[DCBob]

82. we send billions of dollars in aid to countries that dont have oil.

Of course oil is factor in our involvement in foreign conflicts. The world economies, including what is sustaining you and your family, are dependent on oil being available at a reasonable price. If the ME becomes unstable oil price will spike and we will all lose.

[Shagbark Hickory]

87. I don't think oil was the primary reason. I think the primary reason was the threat of refugees

crossing into europe.

Contrary to what a lot of people on here may think, europe has very strict laws about immigration and as it is there are a lot of unemployed immigrants that have fled some truly miserable places in search of opportunity and haven't found it.

[Ohio Joe]

89. Yes, it would have been much better to leave the rebels to be slaughtered

:eyes:

[blkmusclmachine]

91. Follow the Money to discover true intentions.

It's always about the money and the Power it buys.