Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

[jiimbergin]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

In 1969, when the good Colonel seized power in Libya, oil production was well over 3 million barrels per day. Within 4 years Libya crude production was down by 50%...and it has never really recovered.

So why is it that after all this time...after Gaddafi comes in from the cold and is embraced [literally and figuratively] by western leaders, after diplomatic relations are well on the way to being normalized...why is it that NATO is employed to drop smart bombs on Libyan civilians? Is it really to secure oil supply to support US Dollar hegemony?

Come now...how much money has the USA pumped annually into Egypt? How much oil does the USA get from Egypt? How much money has the USA pumped annually into Pakistan? How much oil does the USA get from Pakistan? How much money has the USA pumped annually into Afghanistan? How much oil does the USA get from Afghanistan? How much money has the USA pumped into Iraq over the decades? And how much oil does the USA get from Iraq now?

If all this killing is about supporting US Dollar hegemony through control of oil supply...well it doesn't seem to be working too well now does it? And although I may have my doubts about the intelligence of Bush and Barack, Hillary ["I consider Hosni a family friend"] is too smart to fall for that shzt.

+1

[shiny!]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

In 1969, when the good Colonel seized power in Libya, oil production was well over 3 million barrels per day. Within 4 years Libyan crude production was down by 50%...and it has never really recovered.

So why is it that after all this time...after Gaddafi comes in from the cold and is embraced [literally and figuratively] by western leaders, after diplomatic relations are well on the way to being normalized, after investment starts flowing into the country to develop long neglected reserves and oil infrastructure...why is it that NATO is employed to drop smart bombs on Libyan civilians? Is it really to secure oil supply to support US Dollar hegemony?

Come now...how much money has the USA pumped annually into Egypt? How much oil does the USA get from Egypt? How much money has the USA pumped annually into Pakistan? How much oil does the USA get from Pakistan? How much money has the USA pumped annually into Afghanistan? How much oil does the USA get from Afghanistan? How much money had the USA pumped annually into Bahrain? How much oil does the USA get from Bahrain? How much money has the USA pumped into Iraq over the decades? And how much oil does the USA get from Iraq now?

If all this killing is about supporting US Dollar hegemony through control of oil supply...well it doesn't seem to be working too well now does it? And although I may have my doubts about the intelligence of Bush and Barack, Hillary ["I consider Hosni a family friend"] is too smart to fall for that shzt.

Thank you. This is exactly what I was trying to say. There has got to be another reason...

[don]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

There has got to be another reason...

Can't wait to hear it.

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Can't wait to hear it.

How does a new form of "chaos theory" sound? With the US military and State Department supplying the "butterfly effect"...

[makimanos]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

It is obvious that the past USA policy in the Middle East by supporting corrupt regimes, today is dead. The Empire simply changed direction following the uprisings. Facebook and twitter in the lead. Meanwhile Gaddafi is more clever than the media present him.
Mersenaries. He knows history. Dionysius tyrant of Syracuse. He pays well and he has enough gold.

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

It is obvious that the past USA policy in the Middle East by supporting corrupt regimes, today is dead. The Empire simply changed direction following the uprisings. Facebook and twitter in the lead. Meanwhile Gaddafi is more clever than the media present him.
Mersenaries. He knows history. Dionysius tyrant of Syracuse. He pays well and he has enough gold.

Doesn't seem to me that "the Empire" has changed in any way. Saddam was deposed years before the recent spate of uprisings started. And the Empire continues to support all manner of "corrupt" regimes when it serves its purpose - Karzai and the House of Saud being only two that come immediately to mind.

As I have pointed out before, in the west the process is one of securing economic power first and then using that to secure political influence/power, à la Murdoch, Goldman and General Dynamics. In the rest of the world it works the other way around...and since that offends our liberal democratic traditions we label that as corrupt. We are just now starting to come to the uncomfortable realization that our system is equally corrupt - l'affaire Murdoch didn't take long to thread its way to 10 Downing St., and that's small beans compared to what's going on between Wall St and Washington.

As for Gaddafi, nobody should think he isn't clever, but he is playing out the only strategy available to him. His alternative is to be arrested and put on trial in The Hague. At the moment he is becoming a hero to the rather large anti-American contingent in MENA. While NATO bombs his compounds in Tripoli, reports are the good Colonel is presently in Chad.

[c1ue]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

As for Gaddafi, nobody should think he isn't clever, but he is playing out the only strategy available to him. His alternative is to be arrested and put on trial in The Hague. At the moment he is becoming a hero to the rather large anti-American contingent in MENA. While NATO bombs his compounds in Tripoli, reports are the good Colonel is presently in Chad.

As I said from the very beginning, months ago, it is far from clear that the Libyan uprising was truly a popular one as opposed to some tribes agitating for a higher slot at the trough.

The ongoing failure to make any significant progress points towards a balkanization - whether it be Yugoslavia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman empire, or whatever.

In some sense this probably is better for the US - after all it is probably cheaper to buy off a few dozen little tin pots as opposed to one much bigger one.

On the other hand, the damage to 1st world sovereign power is quite extreme.

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

So why is it that after all this time...after Gaddafi comes in from the cold and is embraced [literally and figuratively] by western leaders, after diplomatic relations are well on the way to being normalized, after investment starts flowing into the country to develop long neglected reserves and oil infrastructure...why is it that NATO is employed to drop smart bombs on Libyan civilians? Is it really to secure oil supply to support US Dollar hegemony?

Come now...how much money has the USA pumped annually into Egypt? How much oil does the USA get from Egypt? How much money has the USA pumped annually into Pakistan? How much oil does the USA get from Pakistan? How much money has the USA pumped annually into Afghanistan? How much oil does the USA get from Afghanistan? How much money had the USA pumped annually into Bahrain? How much oil does the USA get from Bahrain? How much money has the USA pumped into Iraq over the decades? And how much oil does the USA get from Iraq now?

If all this killing is about supporting US Dollar hegemony through control of oil supply...well it doesn't seem to be working too well now does it? And although I may have my doubts about the intelligence of Bush and Barack, Hillary ["I consider Hosni a family friend"] is too smart to fall for that shzt.

egypt: iirc our financial support was the price of the camp david accords, i.e. it bought peace between israel and egypt

pakistan: iirc india was the leader of the "non-aligned" bloc, the subdued enemy of china and the ally- or at least military client- of the u.s.s.r. pakistan was the offsetting asset. then pakistan became the route to support the mujahadeen in afghanistan when they were fighting the russians. now pakistan is the route for support of our own troops in afghanistan. also pakistan owns the islamic bomb. so those were the historic reasons for supporting pakistan.

afghanistan- first was a way to put it to the russkies, then was retaliation for islamists putting it to us. [we had to save face and maintain proper respect for us- both in terms of international standing and in domestic politics]. then it bacame obama's way of criticizing bush military policy without appearing to be a democratic wimp.

bahrain: iirc bahrain provides the home port for the 5th fleet, which controls the persian or arabian gulf - whichever you prefer to call it- and which thus protects the saudis.

re iraq- i presented one theory i read at the time re using our troops to pressure the saudis, not to mention the iranians. then there's the theory that ideology [developing a beacon of democracy in the arab world] drove bush, and then there's the oedipal theory.

most of the above relates to international power politics, some of it more directly to oil, some to domestic politics, and an unfortunate amount to the mental processes of george W. bush.

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

egypt: iirc our financial support was the price of the camp david accords, i.e. it bought peace between israel and egypt

pakistan: iirc india was the leader of the "non-aligned" bloc, the subdued enemy of china and the ally- or at least military client- of the u.s.s.r. pakistan was the offsetting asset. then pakistan became the route to support the mujahadeen in afghanistan when they were fighting the russians. now pakistan is the route for support of our own troops in afghanistan. also pakistan owns the islamic bomb. so those were the historic reasons for supporting pakistan.

afghanistan- first was a way to put it to the russkies, then was retaliation for islamists putting it to us. [we had to save face and maintain proper respect for us- both in terms of international standing and in domestic politics]. then it bacame obama's way of criticizing bush military policy without appearing to be a democratic wimp.

bahrain: iirc bahrain provides the home port for the 5th fleet, which controls the persian or arabian gulf - whichever you prefer to call it- and which thus protects the saudis.

re iraq- i presented one theory i read at the time re using our troops to pressure the saudis, not to mention the iranians. then there's the theory that ideology [developing a beacon of democracy in the arab world] drove bush, and then there's the oedipal theory.

most of the above relates to international power politics, some of it more directly to oil, some to domestic politics, and an unfortunate amount to the mental processes of george W. bush.

Bingo.

"It's all about controlling oil" is extraordinarily facile.

[LargoWinch]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Bingo.

"It's all about controlling oil" is extraordinarily facile.

Perhaps, but protecting country x, supporting regime y or having our fleet in country z is only a symptom of the desire for oil dominance, not its cause.

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Perhaps, but protecting country x, supporting regime y or having our fleet in country z is only a symptom of the desire for oil dominance, not its cause.

Okay fine. It IS all about oil.

Everybody happy now?????

[shiny!]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Okay fine. It IS all about oil.

Everybody happy now?????

No. [grin]

[LargoWinch]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Okay fine. It IS all about oil.

Everybody happy now?????

GRG55, please understand that some of us - while not attune to the finer details of the MENA conflicts over the past decades- do see in the present vast and incredibly expensive military expedition in the region a motive for oil.

Furthermore, the fact that the same entity [the West] is morally bankrupt [i.e. Iraq has WMD, TBTF... in fact, the last 50 years of policy making in the West] acts to reinforces the above-noted, albeit, simplistic belief.

I however, fully understand that there is more than "meets the eye" in geopolitics.

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

even oil is not about oil. what is oil FOR? wealth and power, domination and control, the usual stuff of human motives. so some of the middle east stuff is likely about power for its own sake, as well as oil for power's sake.

[LargoWinch]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

what is oil FOR? wealth and power, domination and control, the usual stuff of human motives.

That is exactly my point.

The Western' oligarchs wants the above you are quoting jk, and will spare no expense to get it - including hundred of thousands civilians killed. That is why they are in MENA.