Libya Operation: Foreign Oil Interests Prompt Invasion

Though there can be no doubt that it's important, there is *so* much more to what's going on in Libya than mere lust for oil. The US, France, Italy, Israel and, now, Germany are competing for regional geo-strategic control.

The US and its various intelligence agencies are still bitter for having lost a major military base, in the early 80s, due to Gaddafi's invitation that they leave within 48 hours ; ) [those were the days].

Furthermore, Nato is anxious to flex its muscles to coax the remainder of the African Union members [23 total] to join the organization, the better to further validate its dubious existence, as well as to counter China's growing influence on the African continent.

Also, Libya happens to possess fossil water reserves, vast underground aquifers which have become the envy of parched regional, and no-so-regional, countries. Israel would be a prime candidate to want first dibs on Libyan water.

There's so much in play with regard to Libya -- so much that corporate kleptocrats and other vultures are in a position to grab were Libya to be reduced to an actual or wholly synthetic state of chaos.

It's about oil, yes, but so much more, in addition. Just as was the case for Iraq.

I hope the Libyans will pause and think carefully about what they're up against.
.

Preface: I am fully aware that the following is a useless exercise, but I do for my own amusement.

I find it hard to believe that the fumbling response of the seemingly naive and increasingly reactionary gov'ts of the west have any agenda short of not looking bad in the eyes of the mideast.

"All that light crude,just south of europe that doesn't have too pass thru suez or pirate infested waters is most tempting too'liberate' of course"

Please, if they were so *evil* and greedy as u say, they would simply execute all pirates .... But no, rather they would take over the oil and seem imperialist ... of course.

Right, and all that oil that clinton, bush supporters don't even use, or need. That they needlessly restrict themselves to relying on the mideast at all, when they have enough oil in their own country. When they have enough coal for hundreds of years. When they can produce nuke plants etc.

"The nauseating concern for 'human rights' by those who HAVN'T charged bush blair and clinton for war crimes is equally bile inducing"
War crimes are a joke. The way the world works, as it has for thousands of years, is that the winner of any war is always right, and the loser is wrong. Furthermore, there is no suicide pact in international law, and if it comes to that, or any law that might lead to that, it is ignored. And further, civilians die in war. This is not a war crime. Wars are started over the most foolish of things. This is not a war crime. What you are is a sore loser. Even if u weren't on the opposing side in war, u are a fan of the opposing side, and just as in sports, ur team lost. Loser.

"The note that has gone missing in all this noise is the judicial reveiw of the Lockerby bombing case being planted with faked evidence"
Right, and you were involved in the case to know it was fake ....

"Israel would be a prime candidate to want first dibs on Libyan water."
Please. *Bile induced*.

So, who's side are you guys on anyway? The dictator or the rebellion? The west claims to side with the rebellion. You are screaming for the west to stay out of Libya. If they stay out and thousands die, you will come back in ten years screaming how they stood by doing nothing because they didn't need the oil, or some other crap.

Dan. Yes, I have the stomach. That is because I do not have the stomach to see the such an innocent little kid screaming in terror when the United States suffers an attack. I wouldn't explain anything to the kid. Not because the kid deserved it, but because the world is a dog-eat-dog world, and military action is necessary, as has been recognized for thousands of years.

Many of these places that were "invaded" as you say, were in fact not invaded, but rather were invited in to defend against invaders. The site you quote is full of bare lies and one can't even refer to it as propaganda. Furthermore, I do think that keeping communism at bay was worth killing for, and invading for, and the reason for that is that my ancestors lived in the USSR, and suffered at their hands.

Sure, I would not have intervened in many of the listed situations, but only because I would decimate from the air instead, even if *more* civilians would die. The rule of the world is that killing any amount of the enemy to save one of my own is worth it. This has been the way of the world for thousands of years; all of known history. History does not complain of war crimes of centuries ago; there was no "crime" in the international arena. The international law that was adopted is quite cruel to the "victims" if you read it. That is because it recognized that international law should only be what all parties agree would not be a suicide pact.