Did Obama attack Libya for oil?

Yurt said:
lol...nice analysis...and likely one of the reasons. do you think oil had anything to do with obama's decision regarding libya?
Click to expand...

Not particularly.

It'll be interesting to watch who the oil contracts are awarded to, but i'd have thought the French and the Italians were in pole position to scoop up the spoils. (And our old friends BP, who'll be hoping the contracts they signed with Gadaffi will be honoured by the new lot)
 
charver said:
Not particularly.

It'll be interesting to watch who the oil contracts are awarded to, but i'd have thought the French and the Italians were in pole position to scoop up the spoils. (And our old friends BP, who'll be hoping the contracts they signed with Gadaffi will be honoured by the new lot)
Click to expand...

you don't think the US had any thought about oil, but france and italy did? i'm pretty sure there are mutual interests here. and i'm sure us companies will benefit. do you believe bush attacked iraq partly for oil?
 
Yurt said:
you don't think the US had any thought about oil, but france and italy did? i'm pretty sure there are mutual interests here. and i'm sure us companies will benefit. do you believe bush attacked iraq partly for oil?
Click to expand...

I don't think the US thought "mmm...oil" and neither did the French or the Italians. For a variety of reasons the French and Italians (and the UK) are better placed to pick up oil contracts but that's more of a bonus rather than the aim of taking action in Libya.

I have a feeling the US were more interested in getting shot of Gadaffi when the fortuitous opportunity arose. Never really got on with old Muammar, have you? It's not often a dictator pisses off all the important players to the extent that they'll all turn their back on him. I mean when the Chinese think you've gone a bit mental then you've gots major problems.
 
charver said:
I don't think the US thought "mmm...oil" and neither did the French or the Italians. For a variety of reasons the French and Italians (and the UK) are better placed to pick up oil contracts but that's more of a bonus rather than the aim of taking action in Libya.

I have a feeling the US were more interested in getting shot of Gadaffi when the fortuitous opportunity arose. Never really got on with old Muammar, have you? It's not often a dictator pisses off all the important players to the extent that they'll all turn their back on him. I mean when the Chinese think you've gone a bit mental then you've gots major problems.
Click to expand...

The thing that Yurt likely doesn't understand is that US oil companies were operating extensively in Libya prior to the war, unlike the situation in Iraq. In Libya, we didn't need to invade to get access to the oil. We already had it.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
The thing that Yurt likely doesn't understand is that US oil companies were operating extensively in Libya prior to the war, unlike the situation in Iraq. In Libya, we didn't need to invade to get access to the oil. We already had it.
Click to expand...

so no US companies will benefit with gaddafi gone? with gaddafi gone, the US can get a larger interest and more secure oil not beholden by a dictator.
 
charver said:
I don't think the US thought "mmm...oil" and neither did the French or the Italians. For a variety of reasons the French and Italians (and the UK) are better placed to pick up oil contracts but that's more of a bonus rather than the aim of taking action in Libya.

I have a feeling the US were more interested in getting shot of Gadaffi when the fortuitous opportunity arose. Never really got on with old Muammar, have you? It's not often a dictator pisses off all the important players to the extent that they'll all turn their back on him. I mean when the Chinese think you've gone a bit mental then you've gots major problems.
Click to expand...

i'm sure they did think about oil. if there was no oil in libya, we would not have attacked. look at syria. you have a minor point as stated above, but there isn't the oil in syria. the US cannot have an unstable libya, it would effect oil and oil effects us greatly.
 
Yurt said:
so no US companies will benefit with gaddafi gone? with gaddafi gone, the US can get a larger interest and more secure oil not beholden by a dictator.
Click to expand...

I don't think it safe to assume that the outcome in Libya will be more beneficial to US oil company interests than what they experienced under Qadaffi.
 
Yurt said:
so no US companies will benefit with gaddafi gone? with gaddafi gone, the US can get a larger interest and more secure oil not beholden by a dictator.
Click to expand...

Really?

Considering nobody has a clue how stable the rebel alliance actually is, who they are and what Libya is going to look like in a years time, that's a big stretch.

Now, if you invade properly, take control of government and seize the oil fields then you have a motive. This hasn't happened.
 
charver said:
Really?

Considering nobody has a clue how stable the rebel alliance actually is, who they are and what Libya is going to look like in a years time, that's a big stretch.

Now, if you invade properly, take control of government and seize the oil fields then you have a motive. This hasn't happened.
Click to expand...

funding the resistance and helping them come to power can have the same effect as iraq. and show me where the US has control of the oil production in all of iraq? my understanding is that they have their own government. do we get money from their oil revenues?

let's be realistic, there are problems like libya all over, yet, obama only went into libya. to say it had nothing to do with oil is naive.
 
Yurt said:
funding the resistance and helping them come to power can have the same effect as iraq. and show me where the US has control of the oil production in all of iraq? my understanding is that they have their own government. do we get money from their oil revenues?
Click to expand...

Is this an Iraqi history lesson?

I'd be on pretty firm territory if i said that the US did have a big eye on the Iraqi oil fields when they were deciding whether to invade or not. Now the complete disaster which followed, if you recall, wasn't predicted. It was going to be over in a flash, cue the flowers in the streets welcoming the liberating heroes, and a new government was going to be so grateful to the US to the point of massive oil contracts. But that went a bit tits up didn't it?

Yurt said:
let's be realistic, there are problems like libya all over, yet, obama only went into libya. to say it had nothing to do with oil is naive.
Click to expand...

Obama went into Libya (in the sense of flying over it shooting at stuff) because the UN said he could. They haven't and are unlikely to give him the nod to go anywhere else.

Now i'm not saying that oil exports didn't play any part in this whole affair but Obama could easily have not done a thing and allowed Gadaffi to wipe out the opposition in order to maintain the flow of oil.
 
charver said:
Is this an Iraqi history lesson?

I'd be on pretty firm territory if i said that the US did have a big eye on the Iraqi oil fields when they were deciding whether to invade or not. Now the complete disaster which followed, if you recall, wasn't predicted. It was going to be over in a flash, cue the flowers in the streets welcoming the liberating heroes, and a new government was going to be so grateful to the US to the point of massive oil contracts. But that went a bit tits up didn't it?



Obama went into Libya (in the sense of flying over it shooting at stuff) because the UN said he could. They haven't and are unlikely to give him the nod to go anywhere else.

Now i'm not saying that oil exports didn't play any part in this whole affair but Obama could easily have not done a thing and allowed Gadaffi to wipe out the opposition in order to maintain the flow of oil.
Click to expand...

oil played a part in iraq, but if you want to look at "getting" someone as you suggested above, i would say bush had a similar reason to attack iraq as obama did for libya. oil was apart of both decisions. obama did not make his decision just because the UN said so, he did it because he knew he could help france, italy secure more oil and help the US in the process. with the dictator gone, imo, i think the US will now have more influence in the country over oil.
 
here is this guys opinion:

"We are in Libya because of oil," Markey said on MSNBC. "It all goes back to the 5 million barrels of oil we import from OPEC on a daily basis."
 
tom prendergast said:
If Benghazi had been allowed to fall as you were advocating back in March, then there would have been no disruption oil supplies.
Click to expand...

i said that? link.

iraq also included a disruption in supplies. you're not looking at the big picture. a brief period of interruption is outweighed by a longer period of stability. and imo, with gaddafi gone western powers will more than likely have more control over the oil. it is ludicrious to claim iraq was all about oil and that libya had nothing to do with oil.
 
Yurt said:
i said that? link.
iraq also included a disruption in supplies. you're not looking at the big picture. a brief period of interruption is outweighed by a longer period of stability. and imo, with gaddafi gone western powers will more than likely have more control over the oil. it is ludicrious to claim iraq was all about oil and that libya had nothing to do with oil.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind - Yurt remembers nothing that he said after a day or so....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top