If the Imperialists Want to Steal Libya's Oil ...

[chegitz guevara]

... why are they doing such a poor job of defeating Qaddafi's forces? Clearly NATO could pound them into oblivion. NATO is doing just enough to prevent Qaddafi's victory, but no where near enough to help the rebels win.

[Jeraldi]

then I guess it is time to protest nato, I have no right to dictate how the Libyan rebels fight their war however we can in the us reject the use of nato to enrich our corporations. Honestly the revenue generated in Iraq should go to the military families if it leaves Iraq, not that I am saying that it go anywhere but to the Iraq civilians.

I am bringing that up because Libya is being treated by the corporate oligarchy the same way iraq is.

[Nuvem]

It's a strategic evaluation owing to the material political conditions worldwide. Public opinion may not be able to handle another full-scale commitment to invasion and occupation in the US, and France and the UK have problems of their own. Many European states are dipping into serious debt and, though it hasn't been talked about seriously for a while, the EU is on the razor's edge. This is exactly the sort of crisis that could break the EU apart for political reasons, especially while it's already on the fritz economically. There are also serious disagreements in regards to tactics in approaching the seizure and occupation of Libya.

I would also argue that if preventing the victory of the Libyan people has been their goal so far, they're failing.

[Rusty Shackleford]

yeah, they cant really commit fully. they make others die for their own interests anyways.


also, the US govt just released something like $30bln of frozen libyan government assets to the NTC.

[Jeraldi]

Yeah they are grasping at straws as to have their desired outcome of this conflict realized.
There is one other thing a lot of people in the us are beginning to wake up however the way most groups handle the protest is antiquated it would be easier to get public outcry if we changed our tactics in how we organize and protest. Exactly how to do that needs to be debated I might start a thread on that.

[danyboy27]

... why are they doing such a poor job of defeating Qaddafi's forces? Clearly NATO could pound them into oblivion. NATO is doing just enough to prevent Qaddafi's victory, but no where near enough to help the rebels win.

Beccause the way world politics work isnt simply composed of 1 imperialist side taking over.

some imperialist are in favor of such actions while other are in complete opposition.

For exemple there are several canadian buisness who would like to see gadafi victorious while other want to see him fall.

Its precisely beccause of the other brand of imperialists that NATO cant go medieval on libya.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think it's because their stated mission right in the media is to look as though they're protecting civilians from Gaddafi. When they get the right chance they'll storm in there and remove him from power.

It's also because pretty much half the nation has sided with Gaddafi over NATO and the rebels so it would not look good to storm in and take down almost half the nation along with him.

They're being a bit more calculated than just storming in and taking the oil. For one, Obama is being praised in the press for not being all cowboy on Libya.

[Ocean Seal]

... why are they doing such a poor job of defeating Qaddafi's forces? Clearly NATO could pound them into oblivion. NATO is doing just enough to prevent Qaddafi's victory, but no where near enough to help the rebels win.
While I have no evidence for this, I suspect that NATO might be attempting to tire out both sides. If they prolong the violence, then the rebels win they're going to need billions to repair their country which NATO could conveniently charge at ridiculous interests, and of course the larger the part of the country that gets destroyed the bigger the profit that Halliburton posts when rebuilding infrastructure, and the more that they can get out of oil contracts in order to pay off those who *generously* contributed to the building of a new Libya.

[Nuvem]

There is one other thing a lot of people in the us are beginning to wake up however the way most groups handle the protest is antiquated it would be easier to get public outcry if we changed our tactics in how we organize and protest. Exactly how to do that needs to be debated I might start a thread on that.

I don't think anything new really needs to be conceived, the people know full well how to carry out defiance once they're satisfactorily outraged and organized. They knew how to do it in the early days of the last century when a strike wasn't just a picket line, it was an armed gauntlet of baseball bats and shovels. An anti-war protest in the day could very well have involved armed clashes with police forces. The problem is that ever since the 60's the anti-war movement has been hijacked by naive, liberal Democrat "peace and love" types. It's a student-dominated field now rather than a working class-dominated field. It's not so much innovating for a new kind of tactic so much as bringing the outcry to the working masses and arming them with knowledge.

A protest is a very weak thing and exists only to grab the attention of other dissenters so that they can be educated and brought into the struggle. Only a rebellion would have even the smallest chance of reversing the US federal government's current ultra-imperialist activities.

[~Spectre]

... why are they doing such a poor job of defeating Qaddafi's forces? Clearly NATO could pound them into oblivion. NATO is doing just enough to prevent Qaddafi's victory, but no where near enough to help the rebels win.

They don't want to directly steal the oil. No one is quite that blatant. They want access and control however, which is different than directly lifting it.

Besides, they don't need to directly defeat Qaddfi's forces. The oil is in the rebel area already.

Moreover the implicit logic is sloppy. Iraq was an oil war. Yet the U.S. didn't go to full power to defeat the various insurgencies. If they really wanted to, they'd have much more direct control of Iraq today. Why didn't they? There's a limit to how far you can push things politically.

Israel suffered a humiliation against Hezbollah, but if they really wanted they could've escalated to total air war against all of Lebanon. There are lines though.

Hesitance to engage in naked imperial aggression post WWII, doesn't discount that there are underlying aims.

[Dr Mindbender]

... why are they doing such a poor job of defeating Qaddafi's forces? Clearly NATO could pound them into oblivion. NATO is doing just enough to prevent Qaddafi's victory, but no where near enough to help the rebels win.

They don't want to put boots on the ground because it will create more animosity than necessary and if more western troops are getting killed it will create a bad precedence. That limits them to precision airstrikes which are difficult when the targets are surrounded by civilian structures and persons.

[Rafiq]

Oh I didn't know you knew everything that's going on in Libya right now

[scarletghoul]

This is one of the worst arguments i've ever heard.. "if nato really wants to get rid of gaddafi why is he winning" ...

Anyway, a lot of the oil is in the rebel-controlled east of the country, so it wouldn't be necessary to fully invade and occupy Libya to get the oil, they just need to bomb the shit out of libya, maybe kill muammar gaddafi, and tear the country apart, to get a lot of good oil.

[chegitz guevara]

When the imperialists really want something, they don't just dial it in. They do it. They may encounter real resistance, but in the last few decades, it hasn't stopped them.

They aren't doing this to steal the oil. They are trying to destroy the Arab Spring and distract westerners from the repression now going on.

[RadioRaheem84]

They aren't doing this to steal the oil. They are trying to destroy the Arab Spring and distract westerners from the repression now going on.


Why not both? Clinton already said that they would buy oil from rebel controlled areas.

I just think that they're letting the rebels do the work while providing them with funds and air power.

[Rooster]

Were the imperialists not already getting oil from Libya before the rebel uprising?

[Zealot]

Because it isn't only oil that earns the imperialists their money, there are also weapons sales and building contracts after complete destruction of a country that makes them money. This would mean they have to sustain a war for a long period to get their "money's worth", so to speak.

[RadioRaheem84]

Were the imperialists not already getting oil from Libya before the rebel uprising?

Yeah, but if I am not mistaken it was mostly through joint ventures. I think the rebels agreed to really neo-liberalize the situation though.

[~Spectre]

When the imperialists really want something, they don't just dial it in. They do it. They may encounter real resistance, but in the last few decades, it hasn't stopped them.


The U.S.failed to implement it's full policy objectives in Iraq: therefore it wasn't about oil? That's a silly argument.

And as has been said before, through their efforts they already have the oil. It's in the rebel controlled zone.

[RadioRaheem84]

"There is also no mechanism for this - there's no central bank [for the rebels], there's no ministry of finance ... I think it's a very risky commercial venture for any company to come and buy this oil.


"The Libyan system has lost its legitimacy," said al-Attiyahi.


http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/03/201132814450241767.html


Rebels are just selling the oil pretty willy nilly if you ask me. Under the nose of any representative body to re-distribute the profits. They admit to keeping the profits for themselves.

[Ingraham Effingham]

... why are they doing such a poor job of defeating Qaddafi's forces? Clearly NATO could pound them into oblivion. NATO is doing just enough to prevent Qaddafi's victory, but no where near enough to help the rebels win.

More money to be made in a dragged-out war than a quick one.

More missles, more oil, more inane media stories

It would be like killing the goose that lays golden eggs!

[~Spectre]

More money to be made in a dragged-out war than a quick one.

More missles, more oil, more inane media stories

It would be like killing the goose that lays golden eggs!

That's another good point. Prolonged war is very profitable for American and British arms dealers.

[KC]

More money to be made in a dragged-out war than a quick one.

More missles, more oil, more inane media stories

It would be like killing the goose that lays golden eggs!

Yeah and who's buying those missiles?

[~Spectre]

Yeah and who's buying those missiles?

The United States. Which is insanely profitable to the American bourgeoisie. Take public money and funnel it back to private arms dealers. That's one of the reasons why Israel gets billions in annual aid - they send it all back to American capitalists.

[KC]

The United States. Which is insanely profitable to the American bourgeoisie. Take public money and funnel it back to private arms dealers. That's one of the reasons why Israel gets billions in annual aid - they send it all back to American capitalists.

And how is the national budget doing?

[~Spectre]

And how is the national budget doing?

For the capitalists? Excellent. They rack up debt (which they can do when borrowing at 1-2% interest), and put all that money into their own corporations. Then when they need to make a show off paying off the budget, they cut Social Security and Medicaid.

The bourgeoisie have a sweet gig going.

[KC]

For the capitalists?No, for the state.

[~Spectre]

No, for the state.

Excellent too. The State survives and expands its influence, the capitalists profit, and the working class gets left to pay the bill.

It's the oldest scam in the book bro.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Because ultimately they don't want the rebels to take over Libya. They want a dissident faction within the old Libyan regime to get tired of the conflict and take the colonel out.

I'm suprised no one has said this.

[khad]

Because ultimately they don't want the rebels to take over Libya. They want a dissident faction within the old Libyan regime to get tired of the conflict and take the colonel out.

I'm suprised no one has said this.
Turncoats from the Libyan state are already well represented in the rebel council.


No, for the state.
By your reasoning, then, there's no way that the escalation in defense spending during the Nixon-era recession could have happened, right? Capitalist defense contractors and their enablers within the American state couldn't have made off with record profits, right?

[RadioRaheem84]

I was under that the state budget did not matter when war is an issue because the capitalists are willing to spend ten dollars of our money if theyre willing to make a buck off of it. The whole notion that war profiteering is spurious because the country gets into debt vs the gains is itself spurious, the people are paying for the war, the capitalists gain off of it.

[~Spectre]

I was under that the state budget did not matter when war is an issue because the capitalists are willing to spend ten dollars of our money if theyre willing to make a buck off of it. The whole notion that war profiteering is spurious because the country gets into debt vs the gains is itself spurious, the people are paying for the war, the capitalists gain off of it.

Correct. Overall, the current U.S. debt is relatively a lot smaller than it was for previous wars, so they aren't even close to maxing out their credit card.

It also serves as a not-so-hidden lever of economic control. It let's them pour in damn near a trillion into the U.S. economy every year, and have guided research projects, all while still being able to preach about "the free market" and the evils of a "planned economy".

[Soldier of life]

Landing ground troops can be a quagmire that NATO do not want. There could be many reasons for their 'tepidness' thus far. It could have to do with the court of public opinion, resources, underestimating Gaddafi either in the spheres of his armed strength or his public popularity, future political dynamics post-conflict etc

The intensity of the anti-Gaddafi propaganda certainly led me to believe there would be feet on the ground (more than there is already) and who knows there may be yet. From a NATO point of view, bombing Gaddafi's troops, aiding the rebels materially and on the ground, waiting for a popular uprising against Gaddafi in loyal areas and the seemingly almost organic changing of power to a puppet group who will sell oil at knock-down prices seemed like the optimum result for NATO. But judging from the recent events in Tripoli, there's life in the 'owl dog yet.

[chegitz guevara]

The point is, a lot of you have a very crude understanding of imperialism, as if they were nothing but a bunch of conquistadors, bent on stealing anything they can from anyone they can, and that nothing every happens without their impetus, unless it's opposition to them. Imperialism has moved on since the 19th Century.

What the imperialists want more than anything is a stable business environment. The Mediterranean Spring is disrupting that. It needs to be quelled, and if they can't do that, then co-opted.

[Sasha]

... why are they doing such a poor job of defeating Qaddafi's forces? Clearly NATO could pound them into oblivion. NATO is doing just enough to prevent Qaddafi's victory, but no where near enough to help the rebels win.

because they want gaddaffi gone but not necessarily want the military side of the rebels in power.
my estimate is that they are still hoping on a palace coup and an take over by current gaddaffi aides and the former ones that make up the pro-capitalist political side of the rebels.

[RadioRaheem84]

The Mediterranean Spring is disrupting that. It needs to be quelled, and if they can't do that, then co-opted.

This much is true, but the Spring in Libya has been really co-opted to the point that the opposition has grown into an armed insurrection that the State believes it has to quell. There has already been a substantial investment made in the rebel movement so they're ready to back them until the job of removing Gaddafi is done.

NATO is ignoring all appeals of negotiation by the Gaddafi regime, which means they're playing the same card they played with the Sandanistas.

[Soldier of life]

The point is, a lot of you have a very crude understanding of imperialism, as if they were nothing but a bunch of conquistadors, bent on stealing anything they can from anyone they can, and that nothing every happens without their impetus, unless it's opposition to them. Imperialism has moved on since the 19th Century.

What the imperialists want more than anything is a stable business environment. The Mediterranean Spring is disrupting that. It needs to be quelled, and if they can't do that, then co-opted.

A stable business environment is not always the most desirable outcome for imperialist powers, particular in the developing world. During chaos and crisis they can often get away with more than they would during periods where in relative terms there is little disquiet.

[~Spectre]

The point is, a lot of you have a very crude understanding of imperialism

You make this argument every month or so. You're the opposite of what you claim to be railing against. A reductionist that boils everything down to "OMG ITS A TRICK!" "OMG US ARE DOING THIS TO ACT TOUGH"



if they were nothing but a bunch of conquistadors, bent on stealing anything they can from anyone they can

You keep making this same strawman. No one is proposing that. They aren't bent on stealing it. They're bent on controlling and ensuring access to key markets (there are even documents directly from intelligence services that say as much). That's different from stealing.

The rebels will form a client state far more stable than Gaddafi, who was already the subject of much legitimate anger both internally and externally. That leads to, as you say a "stable business environment".

Either engage that, or keep arguing with the voices in your head.

[RadioRaheem84]

It's more in line with neo-colonial, neo-imperialism theory; they don't directly own it but own it through proxy.

[CHE with an AK]

Not long ago Libya was a prospering country (with the highest standard of living in all of Africa). Medicine, education and electricity were free for all citizens. There was a state-run supermarket chain with symbolic prices of basic products for large families. There was no rent. A liter of gasoline was cheaper than a liter of water, and the state paid $ 7,000 (US) for every newborn.


Today, thanks to the efforts of the European powers, Libya is a ruined, miserable country taken to pieces by local clans, gangs and agents of influence, including "Al-Qaeda" and Iran.

[RadioRaheem84]

You forgot to include Gadaffi's capitulation to neo-liberalism with many of the joint ventures he took on with imperialist powers in order to mend relations.