Why Libya? I don't think it's for oil or humanitarian reasons

[cali]

at least not largely. Gadaffi (or however you spell his name) was/is more than willing to play. Other countries in the region (Bahrain, for one) are cracking down on their own citizens.

I think it's for a reason that sounds a bit ridiculous: Gadaffi (or however you spell his name) has been pissing off the west and quite a few nations in his own neighborhood for decades.

[KharmaTrain]

1. Stability

Western Europe relies on Libya for a lot of its oil...just like we do with Saudi Arabia. Their interests is stability that will keep the populace "happy" and the oil flowing. They've dealt with Gadaffi (like the freeing of the Pan Am bomber) to keep their cars running and any disruption...especially in the areas around Benghazi where there are major oil terminals...is what's driven up their prices higher than we've seen here. The possibility of genocide and a truly unhinged and vindictive Gadaffi (and family) would prolong the oil and the foreign workers who work the plants in getting back up and running. So while there is some concern for a wholescale slaughter, the flow of that "sweet crude" is the main reason Western European nations have been taking the lead in pushing for military action.

[JanDutchy]

7. Günther Oettinger, the EU Commissioner: "We are therefore not susceptible to blackmail by Gaddafi

Günther Oettinger, the EU Commissioner for energy, points out that developments in Libya no oil shortage will have the effect. "Of all the oil on the European market, is only 2% comes from Libya. We are therefore not susceptible to blackmail by Gaddafi. "

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

2. Why Iraq?

Saddam Hussein was also willing to play, if you mean "sell oil for a price".

Once an ally of the U.S., Saddam somehow pissed off the Bush family, so we've been at war there since 1991.

How long will we occupy Libya? That's the question that makes me hope for a quick victory by Quaddafi (sp?). Let's shut down this nonsensical no-fly-zone notion.

:hi:

[blindpig]

3. Central location.

Right in the middle of the oil patch. Where better to place bases?

Corollary: Those big bases are there for the long haul.

Don't think an occupation is planned, where do the troops come from? This works for the imperialists, the street is chastened and Ghaddifi is weakened, all the right messages sent.

[DutchLiberal]

5. The UN resolution specifically states: "NO TROOPS ON THE GROUND"...

"That's the question that makes me hope for a quick victory by Quaddafi"

Disgusting. Utterly disgusting. :puke: :puke: :puke:

What else can be said? People on a 'progressive' forum supporting a maniac, a war criminal, a terrorist, a human rights violator, a murderer who's massacring his own people. :puke:

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

8. My point is moot now, we are at war

We've launched cruise missiles against Libya, killing many Libyans. It would be nice if we can accomplish our goals without putting ground troops in there.

If Quaddafi looks like he's succeeding, we will escalate to avoid losing face, it's just how we manage these things.

Progressives would rather spend money on cruise missiles that on school lunches? Ok.

Utterly disgusting? I agree.

[DutchLiberal]

10. WE'RE not killing Libyans; Qaddafi is! God, do you LOVE this dictator that much?

And your false dilemma doesn't fly. Try again.

[Critters2]

11. Opposing a war is not equivalent to supporting a maniac.

And, if we're going to war with every maniac, terrorist, human rights violator and murderer, we've got more than Qadafi to deal with.

[DutchLiberal]

13. In this case, it is. And you;re false dilemma has already been debunked on DU a zillion times.

Try again. And own up on the consequences of your inaction.

[Critters2]

15. There are a lot of murderous dictators out there. Why this one? nt

[DutchLiberal]

16. You'd rather see we did nothing, like Rwanda and Darfur. Okay, you have to live with it.

[Critters2]

18. Why would I have to live with it?

I'm not responsible for the actions of every murderous dictator in the world. That's just crazy talk!

[DutchLiberal]

21. You're proposing inaction when the UN has decided to answer the Libyan's plea for help...

If you were in a position of power, you would have let them DIE.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Critters2]

19. Well, for those who support such wars, why not Yemen? nt

[jakeXT]

4. He has been pissing off, but then he started groveling when he landed on the pentagon list

mentioned by Wesley Clark

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PurityOfEssence]

9. That's one of the sources of my queasiness: it seems like a group effort to eliminate a pest

Yeah, he's an asshole, but I can't find evidence of the atrocities that are being claimed.

Oil is always a reason, but it doesn't seem to be the big one here, even though the rebels have more than mildly hinted that they would remember those who help them and those who don't.

The ganging up of nations against someone who doesn't simply fold his tent and go into exile when protesters present themselves is a horrible precedent. What's to stop the UN from getting rid of Hugo Chavez? Hey, HE was part of a Coup d'Etat, too...

If it had been protesters being mowed down, that would be one thing, but once a group declares itself a government and takes territory and arms against the sitting government, it's not just a big blood-soaked meanie and a sea of Edith Cavells and sweet, it's an armed conflict and a matter for the country to sort out itself. Allowing ourselves to dictate who deserves power is an incredibly dangerous precedent, and I simply don't trust our or others' leaders to EVER make those judgment calls either accurately or without self-interest.

It seems much like you depict: a ganging up on the playground against somebody a bunch of us don't like, and even though he's a rotter, the precedent is not one we should allow to be made.

[Swede]

22. I don't think Russia and China would abstain if Venezuela.

They'd veto,and the resolution would fall.

[somone]

12. He's a clown and an asshole, but he's no Pol Pot, or even Saddam Hussein

Did he kill people? No doubt. It's standard operating procedure for every tin-pot dictator in the world.

They're trying to accelerate his demise because he's a clown and an asshole.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

20. Huge oil interests destabilized by civil war. Get Gaddaffi out and to replace him by a stabilizing

puppet.

[Swede]

23. Small oil interests.

2% of Europe's oil comes from Libya.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

24. And how much with Gadaffi out of there?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

26. I suggest you get your facts straight.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=696576&mesg_id=696576

[TorchTheWitch]

25. European oil and economic interests

Nearly all of Libya's oil exports go to European countries... and those European countries at the forefront of the push for military intervention are those most in need of a stable Libya for oil/economic reasons.

It's not about Gaddafi's willing to play - he has no more enough control now to play at all. This is why Italy dropped it's friendship agreement with Libya... they figured out how little control Gaddafi has and Italy is very heavily dependent on Libya for it's economy which is largely based on enormous oil and natural gas deals.

Same with France and Britain. France came right out and said that their dependence on Libya's oil would have them forced to use their oil reserves if the unrest continues.

These European nations at the tip of the Libya intervention spear are HUGELY dependent on a stable Libya. Oil production is down by an enormous amount and most of the workers have been recently pulled out of the country.

It makes no difference to these countries who is in charge as long as someone is and their oil contracts adding up to billions upon billions of dollars stay the course. Unrest at this level means no one is really in charge anymore and all that oil and all that money is highly at risk. This isn't about humanitarian interests at all - it's about oil and money interests.


Even a cursory look at the tons of articles all over the internet show that this is absolutely about Libya's oil and the European countries dependent upon a stable Libya not only for big percentages of the oil but how that's wrapped up into their economies.