"Libya: British Army ready for mission at 24 hours’ notice"
- Thread starter Dunks
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,914
- Location
- Merseyside. UK
Yep it's all abou the oil (again)
also Libya is an OPEC member "The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and has been since 1962. They kick out quite a lot of oil as you can see here.
http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/about_us/166.htm
And as for this regarding Iran...
Would never happen. Iran is ten times the military foe that saddam or the Taliban are. And neither Britain or America will commit the amount of forces needed to occupy a country the size of Iran, nor would other countries allow it. Nations like Russia & China recieve a lot of oil from Iran and do a fair bit of trade with them to allow it to happen. technically if you want WW3 to kick off, all you need do is attack Iran and grab your ankles
also Libya is an OPEC member "The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and has been since 1962. They kick out quite a lot of oil as you can see here.
http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/about_us/166.htm
And as for this regarding Iran...
Would never happen. Iran is ten times the military foe that saddam or the Taliban are. And neither Britain or America will commit the amount of forces needed to occupy a country the size of Iran, nor would other countries allow it. Nations like Russia & China recieve a lot of oil from Iran and do a fair bit of trade with them to allow it to happen. technically if you want WW3 to kick off, all you need do is attack Iran and grab your ankles
Lol yes, building nuclear will effect our consumption of oil....you realise only about 1% of uk electricity is generated from oil. Or are you suggesting nuclear cars?
I am suggesting electric cars, nuclear SHIPS, electric GOOD quality public transport, etc.
So the Libyan Government is using force to bring back law and order. I wonder what would happen here if we all decided that the fuel duty/austerity measures were just too much and we decided to take matters into our own hands.
Riot police for a short while before the army moved in to bring law and order?
Given how vast Libya is, it's no wonder they are using force (rightly or wrongly) especially as protesters took hold of an arms cache.
Reporters and the media are only interested in sensationalising things. How come there is now news on Bahrain? Guess they found a bigger story.
Riot police for a short while before the army moved in to bring law and order?
Given how vast Libya is, it's no wonder they are using force (rightly or wrongly) especially as protesters took hold of an arms cache.
Reporters and the media are only interested in sensationalising things. How come there is now news on Bahrain? Guess they found a bigger story.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
Bahrain's not too bad right now actually, some friends of mine flew out there yesterday.
Sad though it is its smaller scale and further away - you're talking about 300 or so in total killed in violence in the Ivory coast vs a few thousand possibly in Libya. Also Libya is in the Mediterranean not far from Italy - the fall out from the conflict in terms of refugees etc.. has more impact on us... we also intervened in the Balkans while doing little about other conflicts in Africa at the time. Not much in the way of Oil exploration going on in Kosovo now...
So would China who are the second biggest consumer of oil... how would we react to them 'liberating' oil producing nations?
The issue in Libya isn't going to push the price of oil up in any significant manner. It's such a small exporter to Europe it really doesn't matter and any drop can easily be met by OPEC countires.
The only thing that will matter if the idea of revolution spreads further into the Middle East and ends up with a major issue in Saudi. We shouldn't get involved in Libya, beyond ensuring our citizens are safe. At the moment it is a civil war and as such we don't have a legal mandate to get involved.
If things kicked off in Saudi, then we'd be royally screwed and we'd *have* to get involved. If the oil production there came down, we'd be reliant on Russia which isn't a good thing.
War? What a silly post. It's a 600 string battalion not an envasion force. We've sent trips and peace keepers into loads of African and other states before.
People are just seeing what they want and are living in a CT world.
Again?
So who got all the Iraq oil contracts?
Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Congo - were they all about oil when we sent British troops in?
Tis a mute point as we're rather tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan but given that we had relatively little problem with the Iraqi army in the 1st Gulf war (which at the time was the biggest in the region and surpassed Iran's) I don't think Iran, in a military context, would be unfeasible. (current commitments, potential political fall out and Russia/China aside)
Obviously it isn't likely to happen in that way and any possible regime change there is going to have to come from elements within the country with or without western assistance.
Last edited:
Strange. I started a topic here about the legality of the Iraq war and whether Blair should be be done for crimes since the war was illegal. It really annoys me how we pick and choose wars and which countries to invade.
It also annoyed me that most people who replied to me were for the war and had nothing bad to say about Blair or the invasion. Probably the same people who have replied and contradicted themselves here.
It also annoyed me that most people who replied to me were for the war and had nothing bad to say about Blair or the invasion. Probably the same people who have replied and contradicted themselves here.
What court has ruled that the war was illegal?
Weren't 15 of the 9/11 terrorists Saudi Arabian? Yet they invaded Iraq as a result on the premise of weapons of mass destruction , of which there was none. Does that sound legal to you?
It was something personal between Bush Jr and Saddam. There was absolutely no premise for war in Iraq.
Please don't say Saddam was a tyrant and he needed to be toppled. China has the worst human rights record in the world. So why don't we invade them?
It was something personal between Bush Jr and Saddam. There was absolutely no premise for war in Iraq.
Please don't say Saddam was a tyrant and he needed to be toppled. China has the worst human rights record in the world. So why don't we invade them?
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,258
- Location
- Southampton
people do love the old oil argument dont they
the reason we didnt stick our oar in for Egypt and Tunisia is that it was completely different to whats happening in Libya, which is pretty much a civil war now instead peaceful protesting that happened elsewhere, also Libya is actually very near Europe, and so on our doorstep
For all that people harp on about Iraq and oil, how much more expensive do you think Oil is precisly because we of the war, its hardly stabilised the oil price now has it?
also when people include Afghanistan when going on about invading countries to take their oil
Conflicts we have "stuck our noses in"
Northen Island
Falklands
Iraq
Sierra leone
Kosovo
Bosnia
Afghanistan
how many of those were for the oil ? only Iraq and even then you would have to argue that we have actually got our hands on any of the stuff or made it cheaper
the reason we didnt stick our oar in for Egypt and Tunisia is that it was completely different to whats happening in Libya, which is pretty much a civil war now instead peaceful protesting that happened elsewhere, also Libya is actually very near Europe, and so on our doorstep
For all that people harp on about Iraq and oil, how much more expensive do you think Oil is precisly because we of the war, its hardly stabilised the oil price now has it?
also when people include Afghanistan when going on about invading countries to take their oil
Conflicts we have "stuck our noses in"
Northen Island
Falklands
Iraq
Sierra leone
Kosovo
Bosnia
Afghanistan
how many of those were for the oil ? only Iraq and even then you would have to argue that we have actually got our hands on any of the stuff or made it cheaper
AFAIK these are some ambiguities over the UN resolution, in particular the term 'serious consequences'.
Why don't we invade China? - I think you know the answer to that one.....
As for linking Iraq to 9/11 that is complete nonsense - the reasons on paper were WMDs which we knew he had used in the past and believed (wrongly) that he was still developing. In reality he was a nasty tyrant and had already proved to be a threat to the region. In hindsight the invasion wasn't a great idea and we'd have been better off simply concentrating on Afghanistan.
Last edited:
Apparently Iraq was 'for Oil' - yet beyond some simplistic Iraq has oil, we need oil reasoning it doesn't generally go any deeper than that. As it turns out the biggest beneficiary of Iraqi Oil is now China - US/UK firms certainly aren't landing a series of oil contracts post Saddam - kind of puts a big dent in the argument that the invasion was all about oil.
No it wasn't saddam was in breach of many resolutions. How was it illegal.
Which exact countries have we invaded and in this thread 600 troops is not enough to invade libya. It is not an invasion force.
Again your wrong, many people said that the war was not illegal and they wanted Saddam to be overthrown. Not that Blair did no wrong or they liked what he did.
Who's contradicted themselfs?