So We're figting against Kadaffi since if we succeed he'll burn the oil infrastructure and that would be bad for global oil supply which the maintenence of is in our best interest.
Exactly when did we arrive in bizzarro world?
An "Exit Strategy"
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
OK Crackpot, if that's our strategy and objective why not be honest about it and see if Congress and the people agree that is a goal worth risking American lives for? That's all I'm saying.
I criticized W for getting us into Iraq on false pretenses, and just because Obama is from"the other party" does not mean I will give him a pass on doing the same sort of thing.
I criticized W for getting us into Iraq on false pretenses, and just because Obama is from"the other party" does not mean I will give him a pass on doing the same sort of thing.
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
Are you seriously missing the huge logical flaw here?
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
Evidently all the American birds have been sent back to their cages...
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
I guess so, please elaborate.Crackpot wrote:Are you seriously missing the huge logical flaw here?
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
If the purpose was to ensure the flow of oil we'd be backing kadaffi
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
Crackpot--I don't think so. Look at it this way, we have on the one side, a guy we can't trust (never could), and on the other a rebel force which could really win, but which may or may not be controllable. Now if we back Khadaffi and he wins, we'd have the status quo, great but not optimal, but if the rebels win (and our backing khadaffi by no means assures tat he would win, we've lost defending brutal dictators against rebels before), we'd have a government in Libya that might seek to destabilize us by destabilizing the oil supply; on the other hand, if we back the rebels and they win, there's no guarantee that the government would be aligned with our interests, and if Khadaffi wins, things could get worse. So what do we do? Stabilize the oil supply an back no one, putting ourselves in shape to control if the "wrong" party wins and we feel the supply is threatened, also protecting it from the actions of a jerk like Khadaffi if he thinks he might lose.
Now, that's exactly why I think we are there; no humanitarian mission, we couldn't give a shit about how many are killed so long as we get what we want.
Now, that's exactly why I think we are there; no humanitarian mission, we couldn't give a shit about how many are killed so long as we get what we want.
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
Even if we stabilized Lybia tomorrow, it is all the other nations in turmoil in the ME region that are affecting the price of oil. Lybia doesn't have that much influence on OPEC.
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
True, but as the 8th or 9th biggest oil producer in the world it has a great effect on the overall market. The other turmoil is not helping, but Libya ishaving a major effect.
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
the Staus Quo is Everyone is making money of of Lybian oil and to boot Kadaffi is not presently suporting terrorism. THe rebels are if nothing else a big fucking question mark. If nothing else our non intervention allows the status quo and a lucrative known quantity is far better than an unknown quantity.
What this action is allowing us to do is put our maney where our mouth is for a change (especially in the ME) and support the people against a dictator with the approval of the arab leauge and at the same time not jeapordizing any of our other interests.
If you must take the cynical view:
It a relativly cheap and low risk PR stunt to boost our image in the Middle East by bitch slapping the guy everyone hates anyway.
Mind you there is plenty of room for us to completely FUBAR this situation in the name of greed but at this point it just isn't there.
What this action is allowing us to do is put our maney where our mouth is for a change (especially in the ME) and support the people against a dictator with the approval of the arab leauge and at the same time not jeapordizing any of our other interests.
If you must take the cynical view:
It a relativly cheap and low risk PR stunt to boost our image in the Middle East by bitch slapping the guy everyone hates anyway.
Mind you there is plenty of room for us to completely FUBAR this situation in the name of greed but at this point it just isn't there.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp
Besides as I posted before all the US birds have been recalled...
Recent events in the Middle East and North Africa region have unsettled an already tightening oil market, leaving market participants to evaluate and cope with the possible short- and long-term effects of both current and potential supply disruptions. While events that cause oil disruptions may be transitory, their impact on oil production levels can persist for an extended period. Past experience suggests that the absences of internal discord and external conflicts or sanctions are important conditions for a recovery in production.
This edition of This Week In Petroleum reviews the gross production impacts of three past disruptions: the Iranian revolution of 1978-1979, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and the Venezuelan strike in 2002 (Figure 1). Historically, the disrupted volumes are initially replaced mainly with the drawdown of inventories and then with increased production from other countries that have the capacity to increase output quickly. When new production arrives to help replace lost supplies, we can lose sight of the length of the loss from the disruption and subsequent events.
As part of the UN sanctions wasn't Libyan production halted anyway?Past events may not be an indication of how long it will take to restore Libya's production, currently estimated to be at a near-complete shut-in. The extent and duration of Libya's supply disruption will depend on several factors. Much will depend on the political outcome and the acceptance of the government in power by both the Libyan people and the international community following the end of hostilities. Sanctions would need to be lifted to allow for international participation (both in terms of investment and trade) in Libya's oil sector. Following commercial and contractual negotiations, any infrastructure that has been damaged will have to be repaired and the knowledge base will have to return to the country before production can begin to ramp up. In light of these considerations, it is not surprising that the world crude market still reflects large uncertainties.
Besides as I posted before all the US birds have been recalled...
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is
-
Sue U
- Posts: 9089
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
Iran, Kuwait and Venezuela are respectively the 4th, 9th and 13th largest producers of oil in the world. Libya clocks in at 18th -- no slouch, but only about one sixth the production of Saudi Arabia and one seventh that of Russia. Egypt, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain are 28th, 32nd, 36th and 62nd (out of 113 countries that have any oil production worth reporting). I haven't see that events in any of these countries (other than Libya) have actually disrupted oil supply, and even if they did other producing nations could readily pick up the slack.
I think there's more than a little to your comment, Crackpot. Plus, it was a way to get out in front of one of these recent "uprisings" that looked like it might have a chance of getting somewhere; I think there was a miscalculation as to how weak Gaddafi was -- turns out he had more support and control than was initially apparent. Which makes for "plenty of room for us to completely FUBAR this situation," whether or not greed is a motivator.Crackpot wrote:It a relativly cheap and low risk PR stunt to boost our image in the Middle East by bitch slapping the guy everyone hates anyway.
GAH!
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
Well we also messed up by waiting until the rebellion lost momentum and was almost crushed. There is alot to be said for momentum in cases like this. Giving Kadaffi the chance to regroup Lost the illusion of inevitability and gave the timid time to have second thoughts.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
Crackpot--
the only flaw I see here is the presumption that the rebels will lose; if we support Khadaffi, even clandestinely, and they win, we will be on the outs with whoever assumes power, and this may affect our (collectively) access to the oil. Of course we could openly support him with military force, but this would be difficult since we have often labeled him as a dangerous madman. Appearing to support both sides, while protecting the oil, seems to be what Obama thinks is the best strategy. Staying out of it, while secretly arming the rebels, looks like a better choice to me, but then there is too much of a chance with the oil which is, IMHO, all we really care about..the Staus Quo is Everyone is making money of of Lybian oil and to boot Kadaffi is not presently suporting terrorism. THe rebels are if nothing else a big fucking question mark. If nothing else our non intervention allows the status quo and a lucrative known quantity is far better than an unknown quantity.
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
By the time we did finally act they already were all but crushed. If we hadn't stepped in when we did the best the rebellion could've realistically hoped for was a long term guerilla terrorism campaign with a semi-autonomous Benghazi.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
-
quaddriver
- Posts: 759
- Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 4:40 am
- Location: Wherever the man sends me
- Contact:
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
There has not been even a hint of any supplier disruption. However, I note that Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, (fresh from their 100 cents on the dollar taxpayer funded bailout from the LAST time they went long on oil using default credit swaps backed by subprime loans) are again going long on oil, and pretty much engaging in no other financial activity, directly affecting over 50% of the worlds futures contracts.
Then a couple GOP and tea party people offered: "perhaps we should restrict this oil commodity thingie to producers and consumers only" and voila, we have military assets in yet a 3rd country to give a 'yeah it could happen' securty dimension on what is nothing more than a continuing assault on the american middle class.
Its real simple. If the price of oil drops to its proper 32/bbl world average, or roughly 1/3 of what it is, retail prices would essentially halve over night. This would put a real 200-300 a month into every american families pocket - after taxes. people would feel good, buy more, start to relax, jobs would appear, more would be employed. And slowly but surely the middle class would say 'hmm, the gop was right?'. There is no way that will be allowed to happen. Hence GS and MS have their marching orders....
Then a couple GOP and tea party people offered: "perhaps we should restrict this oil commodity thingie to producers and consumers only" and voila, we have military assets in yet a 3rd country to give a 'yeah it could happen' securty dimension on what is nothing more than a continuing assault on the american middle class.
Its real simple. If the price of oil drops to its proper 32/bbl world average, or roughly 1/3 of what it is, retail prices would essentially halve over night. This would put a real 200-300 a month into every american families pocket - after taxes. people would feel good, buy more, start to relax, jobs would appear, more would be employed. And slowly but surely the middle class would say 'hmm, the gop was right?'. There is no way that will be allowed to happen. Hence GS and MS have their marching orders....
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
We need to embrace what is going on in the Arab World, but we can not be seen as a prime mover in this process....I really don't have a huge amount of criticism of the Administration's approach up to this point....it seems vague and ambiguous, but there are times when a vague and ambiguous approach is called for...
As I said before, I firmly believe that what is playing out in the Mid-East today is the most significant international sea change since the the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Iron Curtain....
It is, in my opinion, of that magnitude....
If it plays out well, (and there are reasons to be hopeful) the "Secular Fascist" versus "Islamo Fascist" choice that we in the West have assumed were the only options may prove to be a false choice....
There appears to be a "third way" emerging....
As I said before, I firmly believe that what is playing out in the Mid-East today is the most significant international sea change since the the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Iron Curtain....
It is, in my opinion, of that magnitude....
If it plays out well, (and there are reasons to be hopeful) the "Secular Fascist" versus "Islamo Fascist" choice that we in the West have assumed were the only options may prove to be a false choice....
There appears to be a "third way" emerging....
