This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Congressman: "We're In Libya Because Of Oil"
Congressman Ed Markey said today:
Well,
we're in Libya because of oil. And I think both Japan and the nuclear
technology and Libya and this dependence that we have upon imported oil
have both once again highlighted the need for the United States to
have a renewable energy agenda going forward.
Could that possibly explain why we're not letting the Arab League states take care of Libya?
Remember that Alan Greenspan, John McCain, George W. Bush, a high-level National Security Council officer and others say that the Iraq war was really about oil.
And
according to French intelligence officers, the U.S. wanted to run an
oil pipeline through Afghanistan to transport Central Asian oil more
easily and cheaply. And so the U.S. told the Taliban shortly before
9/11 that they would either get "a carpet of gold or a carpet of
bombs", the former if they gree
»
- advertisements -
Funny, I've been here quite a while and don't recall running in to you before... I've got a suggestion: make yourself sparse (again)- leave!
Interesting that Africom was formed in February and General Carter appointed at the same time. Must be just a coincidence.
Nobel-Peace-Prize-in-Chief declared;
"...it is US Policy that Gadaffi must go"
We have just transitioned from UN resolution mandate that says ZERO about regime change to a unilateral US policy of another war, to effect regime change, and in just 4 days this time! You have just been stampeded in to another costly war with at least a decade of blow back, probably 2 or 3 decades.
Forget 'mission-creep', this is 'mission-sprint'.
In other words the US will be using proxies to provide funding, weapons and training the the wable-of-woudy-webels.
I don't remember a single case of that during my life time, or in the 50 years prior where this process led to anything but months and years of bloody warfare, mass killings, and a very troubled 'peace' with insurgency, plus armed 'terrorism' and banditry/warlordism.
So much for the shite about "the will of the international community", and "humanitarian intervention" - stampeded into war again.
And so much for the dysfunctional charade of the UN 'security' council, that somehow keeps channeling us into rubber-stamping foreign warz, that have less and less relevance to vital national interests, and seems to be just made-for-camera war-crime-waves.
And so much for that JOKE of an institution the Nobel-Peace-Prize. I've had a very dim view of that organisation since Andre Sakharov got it, and since then the list of recipients has been almost unbelievable.
People who actually make peace don't get the prize, but celebrity people who constantly make numerous weapons of mas-destruction, and sell weapons, and create international wars, and fan terrorism - they do get it.
We didn't invade Libya because of oil...We invaded Libya because it's March. It's not greed...it's tradition.
The invasion of Libya has far reaching implications. Europe/USA now make it clear that wherever there will be unrest on this strategic continent for Europe (RM+Immigration+Future markets), THEY will have their word to say to ensure that "nation building" will not jeopardize their strategic interests. It's back to "soft neo-colonialism" à la France-Afrique on a grand scale. Those regimes that play ball to the NWO of oligarchic control (Multinationals + political surrogates now well networked world wide) will be encouraged to evolve towards "surrogate democracy" and "crony nascent local capitalism".
That's the long term plan in NEW NORTH AFRICA...Keep your eye on the ball in this new tennis game!
It's no different to the current Imperial US game in ME/Central Asia (Ex Soviet muslim republics/Afgh/PAk/Iran/Iraq/ Saudi Gulf. Just remember this WAS the "Great Game" of the British Raj in the nineteenth century played agains Imperial Russian Interests. Nothing new...Except that USA is now overstretched financially, economically and EU does not exist politically. It could all explode...when push comes to shove...and fledgling new populations don't want to be part of proposed NWO empire...Unstable equilibrium...Like Fukushima...
I once had a lady friend, who was something of a scholar on Nostrodamus, and had written a book and done a BBC special on the lad.
Unfortunately, some of his quatrains are beginning to sound familiar.
It's scary, in that they are either parables to live by (such as all ancient prophecies), or they are lines that have been pre-programmed in. For the former we need to collectively get our crap together, which I'm not thinking is going to happen. If the later, well, it's all auto-pilot...
Years ago I was watching someone interview Donald Rumsfeld on tv and they asked him why we were in Iraq. His response was "Duh, they're sitting on a sea of oil." I'm not making that up. However since I have yet to run into someone else that seen this interview I remain the tinhat recepient among my friends. Their finally coming around though. I wish someone could find that and post on youtube.
Those weren't his exact words, but I recall the same interview, so you're not alone. I want to say it was on one of the Sunday morning shows, but the memory isn't perfect. Someone else made the point that we don't need to import Iraq's oil directly, just get it to market to keep global prices "under control." I used to be surprised at how oil was behind so much that happened in the world. Now I just expect it.
If your friends still need to be "sold" on the idea that we invaded Iraq for control of their oil...you might want to consider finding new friends...because the ones you got don't sound like the brightest bulbs on the tree.
I agree! Why waste one's energy on those who wish to remain blind? If people haven't gotten it by now, as much as it's slapping them in the face, then they'll never get it: and, they'll be painting bullseyes on you/us when the time comes, accusing us as being the cause of the ills which are the result of Their blindness!
"See ya, I've got work to do..."
A war monger review, looking at the articles advocating a US war with Libya
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/26114/
Again ... facts are an interesting thing to include with an article like this:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm
I know. I know. The government lies ... but if these numbers are accurate, the U.S. gets 3.5% of our oil from Iraq and Libya ...
So based on your reasoning ... when do we put troops on the ground in Canada (25%) or Mexico (12.5%) or Nigeria (9.8%) ...
We're just sending missiles into Libya to "act" like we care about getting rid of Gaddafi ... this has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with oil and everything to do with optics in politics ... but again, you're a one-trick pony poster with an agenda, so carry on ...
See previous comment, douchey.
In another few years Mexico will be a net importer of oil.....so, knock that 12.5% down to 0%. Good luck at replacing that.
It is about oil for Europe which are on the ropes. If Libyan oil goes away they will have to rely on unobtanium.
The UN blessed this mess and that's all Obamapalooza needed. He's willing to go along with a UN agenda as an enforcer without any US congressional approval. Bad precendent.
What's next? US and Russian troops to fight the AZ cops because the UN has already declared they're picking on the cartels and illegal immigrants by asking for ID?
Crock of shit ... France gets most of its oil from Norway. Don't believe me? Do some research beyond reading ZH ...
Libya is a convenient opportunity for Obama to expand the debt ceiling ... Republicans don't vote against advancing the MIC and just firing missiles into Libya is costing the U.S. $100 million/day ... the H. of Representatives will vote to raise the ceiling to "support the troops" ... also "war is stimulative" ... just ask any Keynesian economist. Broken Windows idiocy on steroids ...
Not True : Norway provides GAS not Oil, to Continental Europe. Most of French oil is MS+Africa. Norway's 2.2 Million BPD exports go mainly to UK. France gets 200 thousand BPD of this oil. Libya provides 50-70 TBPD to France. France imports 1 million BPD of ME/AF oil.
Jeez ... get another resource other than ZH and Noam Chomsky here ...
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_profile_of_France
From the article I just linked: "To meet this demand, France had net crude oil imports of 1.89 million bbl/d in 2005, the largest sources of these imports being Norway, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the United Kingdom."
Again ... you can say shit all day ... until you link to your sources like I do, its all conjecture and bullshit like Chomsky above ...
Why is it everyone here believes that you'd a fucking dipshit? Don't like the message? Go stuff your head in the sand! Oh, never mind, it's already up your ass!
We're in 2011. Read the update you retarded, myopic, guinness addict. And read it on the side of Norway's exports of energy.
http://geology.com/energy/norway/
UPDATED 2008
Your argument overlooks some key points:
1.) Contibution to global production- hint: that 3.5% gets a bit larger;
2.) When supply is just being met, ANY reduction kills growth.
Energy is nearly everything in the production realm. Reduction in availability of energy translates to increased production costs. Margins get squeezed. Look at most REAL producers and you'll see that their margins aren't all that great (3.5% isn't that small of a number- it represents a doubling time of about 20 years).
The more money goes into energy/oil, the less that's available to purchase US exports.
You think that it was an accident that George W. Bush ended up in the Whitehouse? He was coated in oil people.
Perhaps you need to read The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski (who is/was one of Obama's advisers/mentors).
I don't know how people can be energy-deniers, how they are unable to fathom the overarching importance of energy in the global economy.
And ... Zbigniew Brzezinski is a NWO, Socialist sympathizer idiot ... I'd sooner listen to my 3 year old on Foreign Policy than that fuckstick ...
Get back to me when he learns the true meaning of the word LIBERTY ... until then ... fuck him.
So, ad hominems are sufficient mechanisms for proving your (lame ass) point? I could give a rats ass what you think about Zig, the FACT is that he (and all the other PTB) DO have influence. Just because you don't like what you're seeing it doesn't mean that it's false.
You're a fucking idiot. Sometimes it's nice to have your type around so that we can understand why this world is so hopelessly fucked!
So.. fuck off you dumb prick.
You're a troll aren't you?
Hell yes!
I see your point. They don't call it the military industrial CONGRESSIONAL complex and Keynesian militarism for nothing.
There is an oil aspect to it too.
No that 3.5% doesn't get that much larger ... get a calculator since you obviously can't count past 21 (assuming you're a male) ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production
Iraq and Libya account for 4.7% of world production ... that is a moose fart in a hurricane of oil production ...
The U.S. joined the party to give Teleprompter Jesus an opportunity to bend Republicans over their love for the MIC ... "we support the troops" and "buying big missiles" to make up for our small dicks ... Obama needs the debt ceiling raised by April/May or the economy goes to shit and he can no longer gallivant throughout the world, play 18 holes, and have lavish parties at the White House on the taxpayer dime ... so he'll bend the House of Representatives over the military by adding additional proxy costs (Libya) and force the dipshits in the house to vote for the ceiling raise ... even halfway decent representatives like Allen West will fall in line when put between voting for money for the troops and shutting off the spigot ... Libyan oil has nothing to do with it ...
And fucksticks like Markey are just mouthpieces providing the misdirection as to why we're sending 100+ Tomahawks a day into Libya ... this shit could cost $100 million per day and Obama is just fine with that as long as it forces the H. of Representatives to fall in line on the debt ceiling ...
Just like when my 3 year old watches "My Friends Tigger & Pooh" and the characters start chanting "think, think, think" to solve the riddle in front of them ... some folks here at ZH should heed that advice ... this isn't about the oil. Its about "kicking the economy can" down the road because the U.S. is broke, the FED is out of bullets, and all hell is about to break loose over the summer if they can't fund this shit ...
Beyond demonstrating your absolute ignorance about world oil production, consumption, and how it's priced, your posts remind me of a saying my father favored: Don't speak unless you can improve on silence.
I'm the only person quoting actual oil production sources in building a thesis that makes sense ...
Get back to me when you quit sucking yourself off for your pseudo-intellectualism ...
Dude, you're an idiot.
Quoting Wikipedia doesn't build a thesis; it only shows you lack the knowledge to find better sources. If you had the vaguest idea about oil that wasn't yanked out your ass, you'd know that Libya produces highly valued and comparatively rare light sweet crude that counts for a whole heluva lot more than a moose fart in the world market. You'd also know that oil is priced at the margins, and in a world market this tight even the loss of a 1.6 mbpd has a major impact on demand and pricing. But naturally that might require you to rub together the two working brain cells you don't have to generate a thought that you didn't rob from the back of a cereal box.
O' for a luverly war!
that's why the french are taking the lead
Captain Obvious
BP's Top kill is needed in Libya.
Respect for human life and the spread of democratic freedom is in direct conflict with the battle for political and economic hegemony. Ironically, though life is worth more than possessions or the energy required to fuel "our" unsustainable trajectory of conspicuous consumption and mandated growth, the elite ruling class fails to see their crusade as the ultimate suicide mission.
So here we are, the most powerful empire man has ever known. With all our sophistication; for reasons of our own distraction and an abject failure of honest leadership, we have no concept of potential humane solutions. In fact, our insight is so lacking, we don't understand the challenges or the questions to ask. Someone must. So here we go.
Why Darfur; 300,000 to 400,000 dead and not the Congo 3 - 5 million dead?
Perhaps the answer is as revealing as: bringing attention to the Congo would mean reporting on the main factor fueling the conflict; the plunder of the country's resources, which primarily benefits multinational corporations. The Congo is rich in minerals like copper, tin, gold, diamonds, cobalt and coltan, a mineral used for cell phones and other common electronic devices. Rebel groups who hold these areas sell off the minerals at cut-rate prices, using the profits to maintain power as big companies and their host governments look the other way. see: Congo Ignored, Not Forgotten | Common Dreams
Now that we have shifted our focus away from Egypt; what of the information regarding the CIA backed shift in military leadership their?
In this case the hard fought freedom is devolving into something akin to Mubarak light with a stronger US Navel presence in the Mediterranean to wit, control of the Suez canal.Why the outrage over the bombing of Libyans and the blind eye for Gaza?
see: Eretz Israel - Erased: Wiped Off The Map - THE SIEGE ON GAZA
And: Roger Waters: Why am I doing the Wall again now?
Why do we supply the weapons used to gun down the protestors in Bahrain and assist freedom fighters in Libya?
Although there has been talk on RT - Latest News (see clip below) and Al Jazeera English l have heard little on the subject. A post on the internet found here sums up the situation eloquently while making my very point.
Who is questioning the intent and extent of a No Fly Zone? I understand it implies the bombing of strategic command and control targets but how does that equate to blasting tanks on the ground? What are the rules of engagement?
"The historical record clearly establishes that an external regime change intervention based on mixed motives - even when accompanied with claims of humanitarianism - usually privileges the strategic and economic interests of interveners and results in disastrous consequences for the people on the ground." See:
clickA day in we already see "invaders remorse" "The Arab League on Sunday criticized Western military strikes on Libya, a week after urging the United Nations to slap a no-fly zone on the oil-rich North African state. "What has happened in Libya differs from the goal of imposing a no-fly zone and what we want is the protection of civilians and not bombing other civilians," Arab League secretary general Amr Mussa told reporters. See: Attack On Libya
The no fly zone, a British, American, French construct was so open to interpretation it was rejected outright by the Russians and Chinese. Again, one day in and it looks a lot more than and No Fly Zone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zLNx54lPUs&feature=player_embedded
By asking a few questions a pattern starts to emerge that quells our ambition for the evolution of participatory democracies and brigs us back to the reality of a concentrated elite power structure with a clear agenda of control.
Pre-I.P. blog I wrote about The Congo and the establishment of AfriCom; the U.S. efforts to secure a permanent presence in Africa (e.g. Iraq - Afghanistan). As China was making great progress in securing energy and other strategic assets on the continent I perhaps presciently called the unfolding drama an opening salvo in a battle to control the continents resources, stating; regardless of the outcome between the powerful rivals the one sure loser would be the Africans.Today the battle to control strategic resources continues while the revolution sweeping across foreign lands is a world wide phenomena that is just getting started. As Alexis de Tocqueville said "In a revolution, as in a novel, the most difficult part to invent is the end." JFK was more terse in stating "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." - Inflection Point
"Operation Odyssey Dawn" breaking for Washington
by Thierry Meyssan | Beirut (Lebanon) | Focus | The French strikes against Libya are not a French operation, but a subcontracting component of Odyssey Dawn Operation under the authority of U.S. AfriCom. Their objective is not to rescue Libyan civilians, but to serve as a pretext to pave the way for the landing of U.S. forces on the Black continent, notes Thierry Meyssan. It was France, the United Kingdom and the United States who submitted to the UN Security Council the text which was adopted as resolution 1793, establishing a no-fly zone over Libya.This initiative must be understood in two ways:
First, vis-à-vis public opinion at home Barack Obama could not afford to take on a third war in the Muslim world after those in Afghanistan and Iraq, where his country is still mired. Washington thus preferred to delegate this operation to its allies. Secondly, acting on behalf of U.S. interests favourable to the "special relationship" between London and Washington, Nicolas Sarkozy’s priority since the beginning of his mandate has been to bring French and British defenses closer together. He achieved this through the defense agreements of 2 November 2010 and found in the Libyan crisis an opportunity for joint action.
The peculiar Anglo - French Air Operations Command logo: the gladiator does not protect the bird of freedom, but entraps it in his net instead. This sums up the intent -I.P. See:"Operation Odyssey Dawn" breaking for WashingtonAlso see: Globalist crimes against humanity expanded over Libya.
“Despite the fact that history continues to repeat itself at the most fundamental levels, humans never seem to learn from the past, change their collective behaviors and break the "vicious" cycle.” -Ashvin Pandurangi
In other news, the Pope is revealed to be Catholic and bears are found to be shitting in the woods.
We're not in Libya for the oil. We have no ground troops in Libya. We have not invaded Libya and with Teleprompter Jesus in the White House, we'll never invade Libya ...he has ties to Gaddafi that preempt him from going to "REAL" war (as opposed to the "FAKE" war a.k.a. Vietnam) with Libya.
Your one-trick pony postings here are ridiculous. Change your avatar and psuedonym to Noam Chomsky and be done with it ... you hate America. We get it. You are no George Washington ...
"We're not in Libya for the oil."
IrishSamurai, are you one of the classic douchebags, or misinformation specialists, who keep claiming that Wikileaks is a Mossad psyop??
Because obviously you haven't bothered to read any of those Wikileaked US State Dept. cables, clownish one!
UK released the so-called Lockerbee bomber (I say so-called as many believe he was just a patsy offered up, and not the real deal) under pressure, first from the USA, next from BP.
So BP now has falling oil revenues from those Libyan oil fields due to the understandable rebellion in that horrendous country. And should the majority owner be the Rockefeller family, one of the top two controlling plutocrats in North America, of course the bankster stooge in the White House will respond with force to hurry things along.
It's always about the money, it's always about the oil, directly relating to money.
[As far as Noam Chomsky goes, he is nothing more than a high-level misinformation specialist; simply deconstruct his last three most recent public talks -- he serves as both apologist and promoter for Wall Street.
Same as Jeremy Rifkin, that cap-and-trade evangelist working on behalf of the European section of the oil cartel. Save your misinformation for some other stooge, stooge!]
"We're not in Libya for the oil."
IrishSamurai, are you one of the classic douchebags, or misinformation specialists, who keep claiming that Wikileaks is a Mossad psyop??
Because obviously you haven't bothered to read any of those Wikileaked US State Dept. cables, clownish one!
UK released the so-called Lockerbee bomber (I say so-called as many believe he was just a patsy offered up, and not the real deal) under pressure, first from the USA, next from BP.
So BP now has falling oil revenues from those Libyan oil fields due to the understandable rebellion in that horrendous country. And should the majority owner be the Rockefeller family, one of the top two controlling plutocrats in North America, of course the bankster stooge in the White House will respond with force to hurry things along.
It's always about the money, it's always about the oil, directly relating to money.
[As far as Noam Chomsky goes, he is nothing more than a high-level misinformation specialist; simply deconstruct his last three most recent public talks -- he serves as both apologist and promoter for Wall Street.
Same as Jeremy Rifkin, that cap-and-trade evangelist working on behalf of the European section of the oil cartel. Save your misinformation for some other stooge, stooge!]
Agreed. The US already controls the worlds supply of oil due to the dollar being the worlds reserve currency. This little war and the wider wars to follow are going to be about preserving the dollars role as reserve currency.
Bernanke is attempting to do what only Wim Hof can do -- climb Everest in his shorts.
We are 100% there because of the oil you moron. Why do you think that Lockerbie bomber was let got by the British government? Because BP told them to let them go to help them with their investments in Libya. Funny how the dude's cancer cleared right up when he landed on Libyan soil. Look at the money BP has given Obama in the past. Look how Obama let BP's gulf disaster get swept under the rug. Libya is a big and convenient supplier of oil to Europe. BP etc. believe there's more oil there to be found in Libya. I am not saying there's a Ghawar there waiting to be found but that 2% number is a figure that was made prior to many of the advances in oil exploration technology and based on external views due to lack of access to Libya as a result of their past terrorism. You could see an uptick to around 4-5% of world reserves.
we are sticking our noses in libya for one reason only. To protect trans-atlantic oil interests period. If libya's main export was spinach do you think anyone would care about the people of libya.
Popeye???
In a round about way we are in Libya for the oil. Meaning securing Europe's access to Libya gas and oil.
I was sure we were not going to participate in the military action. I think this may becase of Obama's handlers taking off the gloves. Major administration figures are were against it. We as a country derive no direct benefit from the securing of Libya's oil, with the exception of potentially lower prices once things are stabilized. My feeling is the European Elite [Rothschilds or whatever name you like] sent Obama a text, drop the hammer.
We are a bought and paid for government, and will fight when and where the banksters want us to. They don't even pretend to follow the law any more.
<HELP> For Explanation
Why are *you* here?
America is an evil empire.
Wake up.
To sleep with your mom ...
Are you done with her yet?
Exactly that's why the US was in Korea, Vietnam and Kosovo and is in Afghanistan.
They all have oil just ask any wannabee intellectual on ZH.
Oil has gotten so much cheaper since the invasion of Iraq.
I know, I know the radical islamic terrorist really isn't blowing himself up vs trained volunteers halfway around the globe instead of Main St USA because they like the US and the western world all of a sudden. It is the Iraqi army that is planting the IEDS and blowing themselves to smithereens for virgins.
The self loathing wannabee intellectuals did not get the dictate venue chapter in their version of Ancient Art of War.
and is in Afghanistan.
They all have oil just ask any wannabee intellectual on ZH.
Oil has gotten so much cheaper since the invasion of Iraq.
Rather stupid. In trade, there is something like trade routes and controlling trade routes is a huge advantage. Sad to have to remind this kind of facts where they were obvious to the common bronze age warlord. But hey, that is what people call progress in this US driven world, debating the obvious.
Oil price will not get cheaper. Expansionists should know this.
There are two stages in expansion: first stage: expansion means an automatic increase of resources inputs as more of them are engulfed by expansion.
Second stage: there is no more room to expand.All costs are to fund the security of existing supply lines with very small increase in terms of inputs.
The world is close to the second stage. Libya is not about putting oil extraction online and to divert it to the West. It is all about preventing it to go offline and to other countries.
From a stage where everything in adds to the pool to a stage it is only about substracting from the pool.
Prices can not go down.