Libya: should anything be done?

[Gawd]

This is all about oil.

Predictable, but myopic.

The Gadaffi regime happily sold oil to the west.

When the dust settles, so will the new guys, at exactly the same price as before...

There is no oil-related benefit that arises for the west from this intervention.

Yes there is. It allows the West to get the oil shipments back to regular sooner. The West doesn't care who is in power, just as long as the one in power can control things and keep the pipes flowing. History has shown that time and again, the West will happily do business with dictators. The West cares zip about what happens on the ground otherwise.

"The West" is not some monolithic power. It's made up of many milions of people with varying amounts of social and political influence, and varying motivations for their political decisions. In the past, those that simply want fast access to the commodities they desire have often decided the actions of large groups wielding great influence (such as countries, or even international alliances), sometimes because they had enough supporters, sometimes because they could ally themselves with people who supported the same course of action for different reasons. Wanting fast access to commodities in itself isn't a bad thing, though people might disagree what the maximum acceptable cost may be.

In the case of the international military intervention in Libya, I think some people who support the intervention are indeed motivated by a desire to secure the supply of Libyan oil. It's a weak argument for intervention, though, as both intervention and inaction are courses of action that leave the continued supply of oil quite uncertain.

There are other arguments for intervention in Libya, most notably the moral conviction that peaceful protesters for democratic change deserve protection from military force exerted on them by their government.

You didn't refute any of my arguments.

[Warren Dew]

"The West" is not some monolithic power.

That was one of the mistakes I thought Gawd was making as well.

Of course, that actually makes Gawd's argument that "it's the oil" stronger, not weaker. If "the west" were monolithic, it would have little incentive to intervene, since intervention at best slightly accelerates resumption of oil deliveries, and at worst, could escalate the violence and devastate the oil infrastructure. Consider how many years it took for Iraqi oil to resume deliveries.

Given "the west" is not monolithic, though, there's an opportunity here for some countries in the west to wrest control of Libyan oil production away from other countries in the west. Under Qadafi, the largest share of Libyan oil was pumped by Italian companies, for example; the fact that Italy was not a supporter of intervention, and it was countries with little control over Libyan oil like the UK and France that most strongly pushed intervention, is what makes Gawd's argument plausible.

[sandinista]

sandinista wrote:

Speak up in what sense? Overthrow the government without fear of reprisals? That doesn't exist anywhere. Any government will fight back if they feel the risk of being overthrown. I know this is a little off topic, and I do apologize, but this terminology interests me. Seems very vague.

In context, he said "turn out" the government, which I took to mean with the ballot box, not a violent overthrow, which indeed would naturally be resisted by a government. An attempt to violently overthrow a government is clearly wrong if an election is going to be held in the normal way, in the normal time, and citizens have the ability to choose an alternative.

If a government suspends elections, muzzles opinion and represses protest with force, then a violent rebellion against them is removing an illegitimate government, and can reasonably be supported by the international community...

Oh...the "ballot box", you are free to pick between two virtually identical "parties" which represent big business interests. I wouldn't call that democracy in any sense.

You're free to protest policy, and you're free to run for office yourself. You perceive a lack of diversity? Then do something about it.

ETA: I do think two party systems - like in the US or UK - make for an unhealthy political landscape. Both parties stand to gain from occupying the center of the political spectrum, so differences between the parties will be minute. Proportional representation largely fixes this.

Do something about it? I am, just not in the sham format of "party politics". Not so free to run either btw, costs a lot of $$$ to run a campaign, even to get on the ballot.

Oh...the "ballot box", you are free to pick between two virtually identical "parties" which represent big business interests. I wouldn't call that democracy in any sense.

Or alternatively the Soviet system, where you get to check off the single party that represents ... would you call that big business interests too?

Single party/one policy, two party/one policy, same shit.

[JimC]

However, in Oz, unions can make significant contributions to the party of their choice (Labour or the Greens), and the political landscape is changing as a variety of independents and smaller parties start flexing their muscles...

I don't know what the unions are like there, but here, union support is the second biggest factor making the democratic system corrupt.

The biggest factor, of course, is unintelligent or uninformed voters.

Well, corrupt would be far too strong a word for it here. They do expect that their financial support for a party will assist their industrial relations policies to a certain degree, and that they will have the ear of government ministers from time to time.

My point was simply to contradict sandinista's assertion that democratic politics is only the politics of capital. Organised labour can have an input, which at least adds to the diversity...

[Gawd]

If the West actually cared about anything other than oil, they would long have bombed African countries like Zimbabwe where there is a strong opposition against the incumbent tyrant. Of course, Zimbabwe has no oil.

[JimC]

If the West actually cared about anything other than oil, they would long have bombed African countries like Zimbabwe where there is a strong opposition against the incumbent tyrant. Of course, Zimbabwe has no oil.

This point probably has some validity. Mugabe is indeed a tyrant (currently intending to arrest his rival, I believe) who mistreats many of his own people, and the absence of any world (let alone western) intervention is a reflection that no-one's vital economic interests are at stake there...

However, the oil argument for Libya is still rather weak, since I cannot see that a regime change will mobilise more oil for the west, or at a cheaper price...

[Gawd]

Today is also the anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. Coincidence? I think not.

[Atheist-Lite]

If the West actually cared about anything other than oil, they would long have bombed African countries like Zimbabwe where there is a strong opposition against the incumbent tyrant. Of course, Zimbabwe has no oil.

This point probably has some validity. Mugabe is indeed a tyrant (currently intending to arrest his rival, I believe) who mistreats many of his own people, and the absence of any world (let alone western) intervention is a reflection that no-one's vital economic interests are at stake there...

However, the oil argument for Libya is still rather weak, since I cannot see that a regime change will mobilise more oil for the west, or at a cheaper price...

It's a warning shot for others. The other regional oil powers will keep the price down, in a time when it's rising, having seen the effects of military supremacy? If I'm right you should see some spectacular wreckage on the mainstream media over the coming days? Also Homo sapiens are not particularly rational and don't plan more than three moves ahead in the real world.

[JimC]

If the West actually cared about anything other than oil, they would long have bombed African countries like Zimbabwe where there is a strong opposition against the incumbent tyrant. Of course, Zimbabwe has no oil.

This point probably has some validity. Mugabe is indeed a tyrant (currently intending to arrest his rival, I believe) who mistreats many of his own people, and the absence of any world (let alone western) intervention is a reflection that no-one's vital economic interests are at stake there...

However, the oil argument for Libya is still rather weak, since I cannot see that a regime change will mobilise more oil for the west, or at a cheaper price...

It's a warning shot for others. The other regional oil powers will keep the price down, in a time when it's rising, having seen the effects of military supremacy? If I'm right you should see some spectacular wreckage on the mainstream media over the coming days? Also Homo sapiens are not particularly rational and don't plan more than three moves ahead in the real world.

Well, we would see spectacular wreckage if the footage is there, whether you are right or wrong, as the media loves that shit...

However, no one has dared mention the TRUE reason for the intervention and it's timing.

It's a plot from Japan to deflect international attention away from its nuclear woes...

[Atheist-Lite]

If the West actually cared about anything other than oil, they would long have bombed African countries like Zimbabwe where there is a strong opposition against the incumbent tyrant. Of course, Zimbabwe has no oil.

This point probably has some validity. Mugabe is indeed a tyrant (currently intending to arrest his rival, I believe) who mistreats many of his own people, and the absence of any world (let alone western) intervention is a reflection that no-one's vital economic interests are at stake there...

However, the oil argument for Libya is still rather weak, since I cannot see that a regime change will mobilise more oil for the west, or at a cheaper price...

It's a warning shot for others. The other regional oil powers will keep the price down, in a time when it's rising, having seen the effects of military supremacy? If I'm right you should see some spectacular wreckage on the mainstream media over the coming days? Also Homo sapiens are not particularly rational and don't plan more than three moves ahead in the real world.

Well, we would see spectacular wreckage if the footage is there, whether you are right or wrong, as the media loves that shit...

However, no one has dared mention the TRUE reason for the intervention and it's timing.

It's a plot from Japan to deflect international attention away from its nuclear woes...

It's the buttons marked 'fire' that are bright red and give that 'brrr-brr-brr-brr-brr' sound which are really responsible. Put them in a bucket full of shit and the miltary chimps wouldn't be so keen on pressing them?

[Efilzeo]

Obama: nobel prize for peace.

[Ian]

Some questions for the "it's all about oil" posters (whom I do partly sympathize with):

Was Qaddafi not selling enough oil to the west prior to this uprising?
If Qaddafi crushed the rebellion without foreign interference, is there any indication that he'd slow down oil production or stop selling it (mostly to Europe)?
If the rebels succeeded on their own, is their reason to believe the new government in Tripoli wouldn't bother selling their country's oil to the highest bidders?

Oil may very well be a factor in the UN decision, but IMO the answer to each of those questions is "no".

EDIT: One other little fact: Libya's share of global oil production is only 1.7%

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This is all about oil.

Therefore, about joos.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Middle East unrest: Silence broken in Syria From the Beeb.

[Coito ergo sum]

Today is also the anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. Coincidence? I think not.

LOL - because nations typically symbolically time their military actions...