Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Iraq - It Was About Oil. So Is Libya

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Iraq - It Was About Oil. So Is Libya

Old 20th Apr 2011, 04:35
  #21 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,541
Drawing an analogy between the US slowly growing ensnarement in Vietnam and the UK moving "advisers" into Libya.

Analogy | Define Analogy at Dictionary.com
In case you needed a reminder.
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2011, 08:39
  #22 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 65
Posts: 4,420
Our detachment in the Middle East at the time thought that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (OEF) should have been called "Operation Iraqi Liberation"........ it seemed more appropriate.
Wensleydale is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2011, 09:05
  #23 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Middle England
Posts: 30
Shock - Horror!

Multinational company involved in contingency planning.

S 206
Sempre 206 is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2011, 12:25
  #24 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Great yarmouth, Norfolk UK
Age: 69
Posts: 446
What if.....

If someone invented an engine that ran on tobacco does that mean we would go in and regime change in Zimbabwe then?
bobward is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2011, 14:32
  #25 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,624
If only, but the first folks to get rich from that live in North Carolina and Virginia. Tobacco as a different sort of cash crop ...
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2011, 18:55
  #26 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 446
It's all about Oil and is a joke, what the **** has it to do with NATO?
It was a civil war/unrest and we just jumped in feet first, what next?
Jayand is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2011, 22:50
  #27 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: A galaxy far far away
Posts: 107
Proly alot of people being killed.

You know, the usual mix. Old, young, very young. What can we do to change that?
AdLib is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2011, 22:54
  #28 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Uk
Posts: 182
Oil's one of things we should go to war for, our entire way of life is dependant on it!


I assume your planning to go and live in a cave with no mains electricity and a wood stove for heating?

or are you happy being a hypocrite?
knowitall is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2011, 02:27
  #29 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 49
Posts: 1,631
It's bo***cks. The old oil argument doesn't hold an ounce of water.

There was no embargo against Irak or Libya pre-war. That oil was fully and readily available on the worlds oil markets for anyone to buy. What do you think is cheaper: buying all the oil these countries can or could produce ever, or going to war for it?

You guessed right - buying it.

War is the most expensive and worst way to get your hands on oil. It doesn't make any financial sense. No, these wars were fought on idealistic grounds. Right or wrong can be argued, but that's another discussion.
AdamFrisch is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2011, 11:46
  #30 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 446
Adam war is expensive, very expensive in fact but not nearly as expensive as the lost revenue from the oil fields lost to a country you can't do buisness with. Fighting for Oil maybe be expensive but the west can't live without it, fact! I don't know the figures (could google them) but the cost of the oil being produced in Libya far outstrips the cost of the Wests war machine.

Why are we not bothering with Syria? not even a mention of any military intervention?
Jayand is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2011, 02:05
  #31 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
You wrote:
<<What really annoys me, however, is the gutlessness. Note how the UN cut and ran, tail between legs, along with some of its donor nations, after the UN HQ in Baghdad was hit with a bomb in August 2003. >>
Was that not when Sergio di Mello was in charge there?
I seem to recall that he was pushing the line that the US had done its job and it would be better for them to leave Iraq at that point.
The only beneficiaries of this bombing were the Americans who happened to be doing the security at the site - if you wanted to hang around and grind Iraq into the dirt as a viable nation and potential future threat to Israel, and grab her oil, di Mello would have been in your way.
Along with di Mello, about 20 of his staff were killed - the UN got the message.
While there may be many detailed reasons attempting to justify regime change in Iraq, the three main drivers for aggressive military intervention by the US appear to be:
Posing a real or potential threat to Israel;
Being a sovereign nationalistic state.

Without any of the above, I am sure that you can think of many appalling regimes that are allowed to carry on.

And you thought that the threat to real freedom of independent nations went with the demise of the Soviet Union, no doubt?
walter kennedy is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.