The U.S. military is spending upward of $1 billion in libya

Onceler said:
But the point is that no one did it before Bush. And that's not because Bush had more "courage". It's because people knew the cost would be too extreme.

You really need to read more about the lead-up to war. PNAC had Bush's ear, and they were a very persuasive group of guys. They had a true vision for not just Iraq, but the entire Mideast, and they believed in it 100%. Paul Wolfowicz even said that they decided that WMD's would be what they would use to sell the war to the public.

It was an over-idealistic vision. Like most believers, they downplayed the negatives & potential pitfalls. What any leader has to consider is the latter - what can go wrong? But they were way too optimistic; they thought our military could take care of it without real complication, and in a short timeframe.

Instead, Iraq is what it is - another historical example of why use of military is a last resort ONLY, and not something to be trifled with. You open a Pandora's box when you start a war. It should be avoided at all costs.

And that, more than anything, is my biggest problem with Bush on Iraq. I want a President who will bend over backwards to avoid committing our soldiers to battle - not one who will look for reasons to do so.
Click to expand...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/03/25/a_mission_wrapped_in_confusion_109341.html

Any of that sound familiar?
 
Superfreak said:
Which again would put 75% plus of the oil reserves and about 85% of the new exploration areas in the East.
Click to expand...

You are talking about proven oil reserves, there are many areas of Libya that have never been explored both onshore and off shore.

According to the Oil and Gas Journal, Libya had total proven oil reserves of 39 billion barrels at the end of 2005. About 80 percent of Libya’s proven oil reserves are located in the Sirte basin, which is responsible for 90 percent of the country’s oil output. However, Libya remains "highly unexplored" according to Wood Mackenzie Consultants, and has "excellent" potential for more oil discoveries. In addition, despite years of oil production, only around 25 percent of Libya's area is covered by agreements with oil companies. The under-exploration of Libya is due largely to sanctions, to the lack of modern technology, and also to stringent fiscal terms imposed by Libya on foreign oil companies.
Click to expand...

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_profile_of_Libya
 
tom prendergast said:
You are talking about proven oil reserves, there are many areas of Libya that have never been explored both onshore and off shore.



http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_profile_of_Libya
Click to expand...

No. Had you read more carefully, you would have noted that I also pointed out that about 80% plus of the areas being explored.... are in the EAST. There have been massive amounts of land granted for leases/exploration, but the vast majority is just south east of the Sirte field.

But regardless.... do you really think the western contingent would give up the CURRENT production and proven reserves? What other revenue stream does Libya have? 80% of governmental revenue comes from oil. It is 25% of the country's GDP and 95% of its exports earnings.
 
Yurt said:
i virtually positive i've addressed every single point and argument you've made. tell me, what argument of yours did i miss, if you can find it, i'll address it. but i highly doubt you will, because you often make false claims when you start to lose the debate. get the argument onceler, if you don't, you've proven yourself a liar.
Click to expand...

still waiting onceler
 
Superfreak said:
No. Had you read more carefully, you would have noted that I also pointed out that about 80% plus of the areas being explored.... are in the EAST. There have been massive amounts of land granted for leases/exploration, but the vast majority is just south east of the Sirte field.

But regardless.... do you really think the western contingent would give up the CURRENT production and proven reserves? What other revenue stream does Libya have? 80% of governmental revenue comes from oil. It is 25% of the country's GDP and 95% of its exports earnings.
Click to expand...

They will have little choice as far as I can see, anyway I'm sure that the line can be bent to give them more of the proven reserves. I can see no way that the west and east will ever be reconciled, it is similar to the situation with the Kurds in Iraq. I suggest also that you read this from eoearth.org

Recent Field Discoveries and Developments

With reserve replacement slipping since the 1970s, and with state-operated oil fields undergoing a 7-8 percent natural decline rate, Libya's challenge is maintaining production at mature fields (Brega, Sarir, Sirtica, Waha, Zueitina) while finding new oil and developing new discoveries.
The el-Bouri oilfield off Libya's western coast is the largest producing oilfield, with output estimated around 60,000 bbl/d. Italy's Eni is the developer of the field, discovered in 1976 at a depth of 8,700 feet and estimated to contain two billion barrels of proven recoverable crude oil reserves. The first phase of field development, costing $2 billion, was completed in 1990, with el-Bouri producing about 150,000 bbl/d in 1995, followed by a sharp decline thereafter. This decline was due largely to an inability to import EOR equipment under U.N. sanctions, and possibly could be reversed with an infusion of investment. Besides oil, el-Bouri also contains large volumes of associated natural gas.
Since the discovery of el-Bouri field, there have been a series of oil finds at various Libyan blocks. Generally speaking, the most significant of these discoveries have been in the Murzuq basin, in the Sahara south of Tripoli. The El Sharara field, for instance, is currently producing around 200,000 bbl/d. Repsol YPF leads a European consortium – also consisting of OMV, Total and Norsk Hydro – at the field. Original expectations had been that El Sharara's output of light (44o API), sweet (less than 0.6 percent sulphur content) crude production would reach 200,000 bbl/d by the end of 1998, but various problems, including difficulties with the pipeline to the port of Az Zawiya, delayed achievement of this target. Currently, oil from El Sharara is being processed by the Az Zawiya refinery.
In October 1997, an international consortium led by British company Lasmo, along with Eni and a group of five South Korean companies (led by Korea National Oil Corp., replacing Pedco, and including Hyundai), announced that it had discovered large recoverable crude reserves (around 700 million barrels) at the NC-174 Block, 465 miles south of Tripoli, also in Murzuq. Lasmo, which was purchased by Eni in 2001 after a deal with Amerada Hess fell through, estimated that production from the field, called Elephant, would cost around $1 per barrel (Repsol YPF's Murzuq/El Sharara field, with its 30-inch pipeline to the coast, is located only 40 miles to the north). Elephant originally was due to begin production late in 2000 at around 50,000 bbl/d, and to utilize an existing 30-inch pipeline located 42 miles to the north. Production was delayed due to bureaucratic obstacles, with the field finally starting up in February 2004 at around 10,000 bbl/d. Elephant is expected to reach full capacity of 150,000 bbl/d by the end of 2006.
In August 2003, Total announced that it had started production at the Al Jurf offshore oilfield in Block 137. Estimated output at Al Jurf is around 40,000 bbl/d. Total holds a 37.5 percent share in the field, along with NOC (50 percent) and Germany's Wintershall (12.5 percent). In October 2004, Wintershall said that it would spend $400 million in Libya by the end of 2006 exploring for new oil and gas fields.

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_profile_of_Libya
 
Last edited:
Yurt said:
still waiting onceler
Click to expand...

Your comments toward what I have stated on this thread have been mainly dismissive, as have SF's. You want to stay on the narrative of "the left is hypocritical - the differences between Libya & Iraq are mainly superficial," when in fact, the opposite is true. You haven't addressed anything about scale, or anything about the differences in the nature of the action. You seem to think that because they both can be classified as "pre-emptive" - under a VERY broad definition - that takes anything regarding this aspect of the conflicts off of the table. Now, I would argue that Libya isn't even pre-emptive under the definitions of the Bush Doctrine - the slaughter was ongoing. You made a strawman comparison to the idea that we invaded Iraq to prevent slaughter, but you know the war was sold on WMD's.

You also haven't addressed, at all, my contention that the left is actually opposed to this conflict, by & large. Somehow, you view opposition to a politician's actions as "apologism" for those actions. You & I have different interpetations of apologism, but you have not addressed that.

Similar to the different interpretations of pre-emptive, you haven't addressed your continued insistence that both are "invasions." You seem to have blinders on that one. I'll set aside all disbelief, and accept your definition of "invasion of airspace." Is the "invasion" of Libya REALLY like the "invasion" of Iraq in that regard? Again, you just want to take any serious discussion about that off of the table.

As I have said, it's like you guys have been waiting years for something like this, so you can try to fit a circle into a square. You want to marginalize the differences, but that strategy is very transparent to anyone who it thinking clearly.

These are the things you have not addressed. Now, give me your best dismissive comment....
 
Onceler said:
But the point is that no one did it before Bush. And that's not because Bush had more "courage". It's because people knew the cost would be too extreme.

You really need to read more about the lead-up to war. PNAC had Bush's ear, and they were a very persuasive group of guys. They had a true vision for not just Iraq, but the entire Mideast, and they believed in it 100%. Paul Wolfowicz even said that they decided that WMD's would be what they would use to sell the war to the public.

It was an over-idealistic vision. Like most believers, they downplayed the negatives & potential pitfalls. What any leader has to consider is the latter - what can go wrong? But they were way too optimistic; they thought our military could take care of it without real complication, and in a short timeframe.

Instead, Iraq is what it is - another historical example of why use of military is a last resort ONLY, and not something to be trifled with. You open a Pandora's box when you start a war. It should be avoided at all costs.

And that, more than anything, is my biggest problem with Bush on Iraq. I want a President who will bend over backwards to avoid committing our soldiers to battle - not one who will look for reasons to do so.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

Was Bill Clinton also a member of PNAC, or did they bend his ear also, and what about Congress in 1998? Did PNAC also 'control' them?

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act#cite_note-1It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq.

And... We have 26,000,000 people in Iraq, who now vote in free elections, have a functioning representative democracy, and are markedly better off without Saddam Hussein. It is an example of what happens when the United States actually supports and endorses freedom and democracy, and is willing to use military force to achieve it.

The "length" of the war in Iraq, had nothing to do with the underestimation of Iraqi forces, we haven't been fighting Iraqi forces!
 
Dixie said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

Was Bill Clinton also a member of PNAC, or did they bend his ear also, and what about Congress in 1998? Did PNAC also 'control' them?

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act#cite_note-1It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq.

And... We have 26,000,000 people in Iraq, who now vote in free elections, have a functioning representative democracy, and are markedly better off without Saddam Hussein. It is an example of what happens when the United States actually supports and endorses freedom and democracy, and is willing to use military force to achieve it.

The "length" of the war in Iraq, had nothing to do with the underestimation of Iraqi forces, we haven't been fighting Iraqi forces!
Click to expand...

SuperYurt, are you guys paying attention? THIS is what apologism looks like.

I'm sure you'll be all over this one....
 
Dixie said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

Was Bill Clinton also a member of PNAC, or did they bend his ear also, and what about Congress in 1998? Did PNAC also 'control' them?

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act#cite_note-1It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq.

And... We have 26,000,000 people in Iraq, who now vote in free elections, have a functioning representative democracy, and are markedly better off without Saddam Hussein. It is an example of what happens when the United States actually supports and endorses freedom and democracy, and is willing to use military force to achieve it.

The "length" of the war in Iraq, had nothing to do with the underestimation of Iraqi forces, we haven't been fighting Iraqi forces!
Click to expand...

Bush stuffed his admin with PNAC members, Wolfowitz, Perle and Rumsfeld to name but three.
 
Onceler said:
But the point is that no one did it before Bush. And that's not because Bush had more "courage". It's because people knew the cost would be too extreme.

You really need to read more about the lead-up to war. PNAC had Bush's ear, and they were a very persuasive group of guys. They had a true vision for not just Iraq, but the entire Mideast, and they believed in it 100%. Paul Wolfowicz even said that they decided that WMD's would be what they would use to sell the war to the public.

It was an over-idealistic vision. Like most believers, they downplayed the negatives & potential pitfalls. What any leader has to consider is the latter - what can go wrong? But they were way too optimistic; they thought our military could take care of it without real complication, and in a short timeframe.

Instead, Iraq is what it is - another historical example of why use of military is a last resort ONLY, and not something to be trifled with. You open a Pandora's box when you start a war. It should be avoided at all costs.

And that, more than anything, is my biggest problem with Bush on Iraq. I want a President who will bend over backwards to avoid committing our soldiers to battle - not one who will look for reasons to do so.
Click to expand...

Like I said you are a naive boob. PNAC was one of several organized voices surrounding the determined and definite goal of removing Saddam-a unified goal devised MUCH earlier then Bush or PNAC!!!! As noted WMD were a factor that was supported and believed a reality MUCH earlier then PNAC or Bush. Also noted was that a compliant Sdadam was irrelevant because MUCH earlier then Bush or PNAC it had been decided by the global community that Saddam must be removed and a regime change with a democracy put in his place the goal!
 
UOTE=Onceler;790960]Your comments toward what I have stated on this thread have been mainly dismissive, as have SF's. You want to stay on the narrative of "the left is hypocritical - the differences between Libya & Iraq are mainly superficial," when in fact, the opposite is true. You haven't addressed anything about scale, or anything about the differences in the nature of the action. You seem to think that because they both can be classified as "pre-emptive" - under a VERY broad definition - that takes anything regarding this aspect of the conflicts off of the table. Now, I would argue that Libya isn't even pre-emptive under the definitions of the Bush Doctrine - the slaughter was ongoing. You made a strawman comparison to the idea that we invaded Iraq to prevent slaughter, but you know the war was sold on WMD's.
Click to expand...

you have some nerve onceler....my comments have been dismissive? nearly every post you made in this thread is dismissive of any view but YOURS. you insult, call people stupid, dishonest....but oh no, its others who are dismissive. you really are the most intellectually dishonest person on this board.

anything off the table? what are you talking about? more onceler nonsense because you've got your ass kicked in this debate. i've already shown that libya is in fact preemptive under the bush doctrine. i never said we invaded iraq to stop slaughter, more lies by onceler, when he loses, he lies. my comment that we stopped saddam from harming his own citizens is NOT a strawman you idiot. i never claimed you or anyone else made that argument, that is what a strawman is you moron. its true though, we stopped saddam from harming his citizens, he was a brutal dictator, no one disputes that.


You also haven't addressed, at all, my contention that the left is actually opposed to this conflict, by & large. Somehow, you view opposition to a politician's actions as "apologism" for those actions. You & I have different interpetations of apologism, but you have not addressed that.
Click to expand...

my lord....i've addressed that point over and over. when you have some mainstream lefties, then you might have a point. so far you keep repeating CODE PINK, CODE PINK...code pink is against all military actions etc, using them doesn't help your contention at all. pelosi has defended obama and so has reid....when you get mainstream liberals like we had against bush, then get back to me, until then you're blowing smoke

Similar to the different interpretations of pre-emptive, you haven't addressed your continued insistence that both are "invasions." You seem to have blinders on that one. I'll set aside all disbelief, and accept your definition of "invasion of airspace." Is the "invasion" of Libya REALLY like the "invasion" of Iraq in that regard? Again, you just want to take any serious discussion about that off of the table.
Click to expand...

there are no different interpretations of preemptive, there is ONLY one definition and its not your make believe apologist definition. SF even posted the definition, but you ignore the truth in order to hammer your apologists bullshit. i never said the invasion of libya was just like iraq. you keep repeating this lie in the hopes it will stick. we don't have boots on the ground in libya, but i do believe it is an invasion and no one on this board has given me any cites or authority otherwise....even though billy doesn't agree with me, he concedes that if libya did the same to us, our military and government would call it an invasion. if you want to pretend that sending in warbirds and over 150 missiles is not an invasion, have at it.....i'm sure if someone sent a missile in your back yard, you would say - hey thats an invasion :rolleyes:

As I have said, it's like you guys have been waiting years for something like this, so you can try to fit a circle into a square. You want to marginalize the differences, but that strategy is very transparent to anyone who it thinking clearly.

These are the things you have not addressed. Now, give me your best dismissive comment
Click to expand...

your entire post is a dismissive rant onceler. stop being so intellectually dishonest...its clear you're all butt hurt over this and are just lashing out like a petulant child. no one has been waiting for years....grow up dude
 
Wow - once again, Yurt blows a gasket. I think you need to reconsider who sounds like a "petulant child" on this one. And you guys have definitely been waiting for years; it's really all you care about in this discussion. You don't want to hear anything that doesn't support "look at the hypocrisy of the left." It all needs to fit that narrative.

Like I said, you're marginalizing what are very real differences. You'd be laughed out of any serious debate on this. All of the points you made above are the dismissive comments I was expecting; you're not really addressing the differences in a meaningful way. Maybe you don't see them, but that would be weird...
 
Still no links from Oncelor showing us the protests of Obama's preemptive war with Libya?????

Funny, because I thought Oncelor was the one calling people intellectually dishonest. Yet he has said multiple times that the left IS protesting Obama for the Libyan war.... yet no evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top