Greenwald: In a pure coincidence, Gaddafi impeded U.S. oil interests before the war

[QuintanarooBoy]

When the war in Libya began, the U.S. government convinced a large number of war supporters that we were there to achieve the very limited goal of creating a no-fly zone in Benghazi to protect civilians from air attacks, while President Obama specifically vowed that "broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake." This no-fly zone was created in the first week, yet now, almost three months later, the war drags on without any end in sight, and NATO is no longer even hiding what has long been obvious: that its real goal is exactly the one Obama vowed would not be pursued -- regime change through the use of military force. We're in Libya to forcibly remove Gaddafi from power and replace him with a regime that we like better, i.e., one that is more accommodating to the interests of the West. That's not even a debatable proposition at this point.

What I suppose is debatable, in the most generous sense of that term, is our motive in doing this. Why -- at a time when American political leaders feel compelled to advocate politically radioactive budget cuts to reduce the deficit and when polls show Americans solidly and increasingly opposed to the war -- would the U.S. Government continue to spend huge sums of money to fight this war? Why is President Obama willing to endure self-evidently valid accusations -- even from his own Party -- that he's fighting an illegal war by brazenly flouting the requirements for Congressional approval? Why would Defense Secretary Gates risk fissures by so angrily and publicly chiding NATO allies for failing to build more Freedom Bombs to devote to the war? And why would we, to use the President's phrase, "stand idly by" while numerous other regimes -- including our close allies in Bahrain and Yemen and the one in Syria -- engage in attacks on their own people at least as heinous as those threatened by Gaddafi, yet be so devoted to targeting the Libyan leader?

Whatever the answers to those mysteries, no responsible or Serious person, by definition, would suggest that any of this -- from today's Washington Post -- has anything to do with it.

Full article (which has link to WaPo) here: http://www.salon.com/news/libya/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/06/11/libya

[Arctic Dave]

1. Yeah, who could of thought. This is nothing but an armed robbery.

[Demeter]

5. War Is Ever So

To the victor belong the spoils (of war).

And so much for a Shining City on the Hill....

[bvar22]

2. Hey, Greenwald has been reading DU.

Savvy DUers were way ahead of Greenwald on this one.

There was THIS post way back on April 1 by DUer bvar22:

"Qaddafi used to be our friend.
He was such a good friend that in 2008,
he received $26 Billion US Dollars in "Bailout" funds from the USA.

But Qaddafi really Screwed the Pooch in 2009.
He suggested that Libya should NATIONALIZE their OIL.

The year before, he demanded and received a larger cut ($5.4 Billion) of the Oil Corps profits for the Libyan people. He is now suffering the blowback from pissing off the Global Oil Corps.

or do you think that this very quick reversal of US Foreign Policy (from $BILLIONS to BOMBS) is just a coincidence?

And THIS one by bvar22:

"The (Libyan) Oil & those PROFITS belong to the Global Oil Corporations!!!

SEE: The Iraq Oil Law.

"I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil." – Alan Greenspan

According to the Bush Administration, the notion that the occupation of Iraq was a means to gain control over that country’s vast oil reserves is “nonsense” and “a myth.” However, in February, 2007, the proposed draft of a new law to structure Iraq’s oil industry was leaked, and it is now being considered by the Iraqi parliament. Several key features of the law would:

* Allow two-thirds of Iraq’s oil fields to be developed by private oil corporations. In contrast, the oil industry has been nationalized in every other major Middle Eastern producer for over 30 years.

* Place governing decisions over oil in a new body known as the Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council, which may include foreign oil companies;

* Open the door for foreign oil companies to lock up decades-long deals now, when the Iraqi government is at its weakest.

Overall, the law would secure the agenda of ExxonMobil, Chevon, and the other majors, robbing the Iraqi people of their most basic source of wealth. Much is at stake. With 115 billion barrels of proven reserves ($7 trillion worth at $64 per barrel) and another 215 billion possible or likely ($14 trillion), there’s nearly a million dollars of oil for every Iraqi citizen. It’s a vast and precious national resource—but only if Iraqis are allowed to control it themselves."

http://www.iraqoillaw.com

Libya NEEDS someone else controlling their Oil, and exporting the profits!
Its the "Uniquely American Solution",
and it WORKS!
We just keep dropping Humanitarian Freedom Bombs on the Libyans
until they say, OK,..OK...You can have the OIL!"
.
.
Mission Accomplished!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4878964&mesg_id=4880275

also THIS one:

"Gadaffi used to be our friend, but then he said the "N" word...
"Nationalize"...as in the Oil Companies.
In 2009, he demanded and got a bigger share of the Profits ($5.4Billion),

Now, the Oil Co puppets in the USA are demanding his head on a platter.
Rinse, Lather, Repeat.

"They" didn't even bother to change The Marketing,
which goes to show you CAN fool some of the people ALL the time.


If you are not FOR the New OIL WAR in Libya,
then you are WITH The Communists AlQaeda Saddam The Terrorists Qaddafi!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=955417&mesg_id=958649

Duer bvar22 NAILS IT with THIS post:

"NATO is now a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of the IMF and Global Energy Corporations.
NATO is the Enforcement Arm."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1269030&mesg_id=1271412

Gotta give Greenwald some credit:

"Is there anyone -- anywhere -- who actually believes that these aren't the driving considerations in why we're waging this war in Libya? After almost three months of fighting and bombing -- when we're so far from the original justifications and commitments that they're barely a distant memory -- is there anyone who still believes that humanitarian concerns are what brought us and other Western powers to the war in Libya? Is there anything more obvious -- as the world's oil supplies rapidly diminish -- than the fact that our prime objective is to remove Gaddafi and install a regime that is a far more reliable servant to Western oil interests, and that protecting civilians was the justifying pretext for this war, not the purpose? If (as is quite possible) the new regime turns out to be as oppressive as Gaddafi but far more subservient to Western corporations (like, say, our good Saudi friends), does anyone think we're going to care in the slightest or (at most) do anything other than pay occasional lip service to protesting it? Does anyone think we're going to care about The Libyan People if they're being oppressed or brutalized by a reliably pro-Western successor to Gaddafi?"

http://www.salon.com/news/libya/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/06/11/libya

But Greenwald gets it wrong here:

"And it's fine -- or at least candid -- to argue, as Ann Coulter often does, that "of course we should go to war for oil. . . .We need oil. That's a good reason to go to war."

"WE" don't get that oil, as DUer bvar22 points out here:

"You know, if these WARS were to secure energy FOR the American People, I could understand them...
not Support them, but understand them.

The American People pay the Price of WAR in Blood, Public Treasure, and Blowback,
but do NOT receive the Oil/Gas.
The Oil/Gas is given to the MultiNational Oil Corporations who
SELL it on the World Market for the BEST possible profit.

The American Taxpayers PAY for The OIL/GAS FOUR Times:
1)Blood & Taxpayer Money to directly prosecute The WARS,
2)Homeland Security to handle the Blowback,
3)Profit for the Oil Corporations at The Pump,
and,
4)Billions in "subsidies" for the Oil Corporations

THATS quite a racket.

"And everyone has a share!" shouted Milo
as the American planes began dropping bombs on their own base.

[EFerrari]

3. Good job.

:yourock:

[walerosco]

4. That was a good rundown

of the Libyan war and the sinister reasons why we are fighting it. I think now its safe to say that Obama if he was president after the events of sept 11 would have also tried to justify the Iraqi invasion. They all work for the oil interests, both republicans and democrats

[mazzarro]

9. Bingo!!!!!!! - Obama in all probability would not have been

much different from Shrub if he had been in office when 9-11 occurred - well, except for the antics. Yes the so called leaders all work for the same corporate power.

And all these DU'ers who keep trying to justify the dastardly intervention in Libya by NATO probably would have justified everything that happened in Iraq had it been a Dem in the WH at that time.

[Demeter]

6. It Didn't Help When Gaddafi, Enraged by His Investment Losses of $2B

issued contracts on the banksters of Goldman Sachs...

[bvar22]

7. If I had known Gaddafi had put a bounty on the Banksters,

...I would have sent him a couple of bucks to sweeten the pot.
:party:

[QuintanarooBoy]

8. DUers are prescient people

The politicians should pay attention, except to those who are insane, of which I may or may not be one. :evilgrin:

[Demeter]

10. We are just paying attention, with passion

Nobody pays us (nor do they pay us off....)