Libya

[BOOMERBRADLEY]

You want to know what pisses me off about any of these f'ng Arab countries? We go out of our way as the United States to help them in their troubles with freedom, opression...etc. We train them using advanced weaponry. We give them all they need to be successful fighting their own battles then they turn around and try to f**k us using our own weapons and training (see afghanistan) The same damn thing will happen in Libya. I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't help them but giving weapons to simple minded cultures that are willing to tuck tail and run at the first sign of adversity and go join the enemy is not something I think we should be doing as a nation.

I could be wrong and hopefully I am.

[yermom]

we are arming them now?

[DIB]

It doesn't matter the rhetoric. It doesn't matter the party. Something about that seat turns people into Empire builders and world policemen.

Keep the US out of foreign entanglements. We have too much at home to deal with. Increase our drilling at home and we wouldn't even have to worry about the Middle East.

[OutlandTrophy]

are we going to war for oil again?

Black Gold for Silver Stars, cold hard cash for armored cars...

[Jacie]

In a world where oil was more precious than gold, where superpowers were willing to go to war to quench their demand for more, one man would face them and say . . .

. . . you know guys, if you would just learn how to spell my name, I think we could make a deal.

[sappstuf]

we are arming them now?

If you mean certain Arab countries.. Yes.


U.S.-Saudi Arabia Arms Deal Would Be Largest Ever

The Obama administration is set to notify Congress of plans to offer advanced aircraft to Saudi Arabia worth up to $60 billion, the largest U.S. arms deal ever, and is in talks with the kingdom about potential naval and missile-defense upgrades that could be worth tens of billions of dollars more.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/13/ussaudi-arabia-arms-deal-_n_714388.html

[bonkuba]

I could care less what happens to them to be honest. They don't want our help.....even if the lead Towels say they do......then change their minds after we start blowing **** up.

Anyway, heck with em. We dont need their oil anyways....we got plenty over here if they would just allow us to drill. Hell, other countries are getting rich off our Gulf....and we "Thank you".

[jk the sooner fan]

If you mean certain Arab countries.. Yes.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/13/ussaudi-arabia-arms-deal-_n_714388.html

we've been arming/training the Saudi's since the first gulf war - this is about as newsworthy as JAPS BOMB PEARL HARBOR

[Veritas]

Keep the US out of foreign entanglements. We have too much at home to deal with. Increase our drilling at home and we wouldn't even have to worry about the Middle East.
Agree 100%.

I have zero problem going to war for oil; I just wish we'd be honest about it. In the case of Libya, I can't find anyone who can tell my why the hell we're involved aside from a vague "stability of the region" thing, which is silly.

[Midtowner]

Why we're involved is so that Obama can test his new foreign policy approach when dealing with the ME--that the U.S. under Obama, will support the will of the people, whatever that might be.

[The Profit]

I think it is less about oil, and more about feeding the monster that is the Military Industrial Complex. One thing for certain, though, is that it is about money. From the beginning, wars have always been about one of three things--God, money (land) or twat.

[BOOMERBRADLEY]

woops wrong thread

[OutlandTrophy]

Why we're involved is so that Obama can test his new foreign policy approach when dealing with the ME--that the U.S. under Obama, will support the will of the people, whatever that might be.

supporting them when they have the upper hand or waiting until they have been wiped out by tanks and bombs?

The timing has been really weird on this.

[Midtowner]

supporting them when they have the upper hand or waiting until they have been wiped out by tanks and bombs?

The timing has been really weird on this.

It worked for Clinton in Bosnia/Kosovo.

As long as the U.S. remains firmly in a supportive role, I'll be :pop:

[pphilfran]

supporting them when they have the upper hand or waiting until they have been wiped out by tanks and bombs?

The timing has been really weird on this.

It isn't that simple...

1. We needed to wait for the UN to make policy...no way in hell should we have gone on our own...

2. It takes a little time to pull things together...you don't go launching a 100 plus cruise missiles with multiple countries involved at the snap of your fingers...I think they did a hell of a job getting this thing together this fast..

3. There must be little concern about ground troops or the time frame would have been significantly longer...

4. I wish we would have stayed the f out...

[Jammin']

This seems like a good place to drop this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12784675

[AlboSooner]

Agree 100%.

I have zero problem going to war for oil; I just wish we'd be honest about it. In the case of Libya, I can't find anyone who can tell my why the hell we're involved aside from a vague "stability of the region" thing, which is silly.

We are involved because France and Saudi Arabia begged us. I am sure we are going to get more involvement in Afghanistan by France, and help from Saudi with alleviating the oil prices. Obama seems very reluctant to be in this thing, and the sooner the US is out, the better is seems for the president.

The US has about 164 billion barrels of oil (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=04212e22-c1b3-41f2-b0ba-0da5eaead952)(most of it it's expensive to exact), and we consume about 6.8 billion barrels each year. Some think the reward doesn't justify the risk of getting it out. That oil would be gone in about 24 years. We have a lot of natural gas, and coal, which we should use before we touch the oil.

[pphilfran]

We are involved because France and Saudi Arabia begged us. I am sure we are going to get more involvement in Afghanistan by France, and help from Saudi with alleviating the oil prices. Obama seems very reluctant to be in this thing, and the sooner the US is out, the better is seems for the president.

The US has about 164 billion barrels of oil, and we consume about 6.8 billion barrels each year. Some think the reward doesn't justify the risk of getting it out. That oil would be gone in about 24 years. We have a lot of natural gas, and coal, which we should use before we touch the oil.

Sooner or later the Saudi's will not be able to increase demand...their fields are old and only new technology is keeping their flow rate at high levels...no outsiders are allowed to inspect and make estimates of their reserves...them drilling off shore to increase supply should tell us something about their land fields...

[OULenexaman]

Saudi fields are already using Secondary and Tertiary recovery programs?? I was not aware of that....wonder which ones they using. I would assume water and chemical floods....possible thermal as well??

[pphilfran]

Saudi fields are already using Secondary and Tertiary recovery programs?? I was not aware of that....wonder which ones they using. I would assume water and chemical floods....possible thermal as well??

Nobody knows...only speculation...no outsider gets into their fields...if I am not mistaken the fields were opened in the 50's so the have be on the downward slope of production...


Like I said, drilling off shore tells me something...

[cantwait48]

we have oil we can drill for but if you are looking 50-100 yrs down the road what if we used all of ours and then were really dependent on foreign oil. Then a world war breaks out.....

[pphilfran]

This is from EIA...

http://www.eia.doe.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=SA

Challenges to the Upstream Development Program
One challenge the Saudis face in achieving their strategic vision to add production capacity is that their existing fields experience 6 to 8 percent annual "decline rates on average (as reported by PlattsOilgram in 2006) in existing fields, meaning that the country needs around 700,000 bbl/d in additional capacity each year just to compensate for natural decline. Decline estimates for Saudi Arabia vary widely, however. The Ministry of Petroleum maintains that decline rates in Saudi Arabia are around 2 percent annually. Saudi Aramco has stated that it will also conduct additional drilling at existing fields in order to help compensate for the natural declines from the mature fields.

Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia’s national oil company, estimates that the average total depletion for Saudi oil fields is 29 percent, with Abqaiq (the oldest) 74 percent depleted, the giant Ghawar field having produced 48 percent of its proven reserves and the younger Shaybah, just 5 percent depleted. Aramco also reports that Saudi oil reserves are likely underestimated, not overestimated, although some analysts have disputed Aramco's optimistic assessments of Saudi oil reserves and future production. The Saudi Oil Minister, al-Naimi, has stated that Saudi Arabia could add as much as 200 billion barrels of oil to proven reserves after an extended period of investment and exploration.

[MR2-Sooner86]

I'd much rather sit back, watch them kill each other, and not risk any of our resources or personnel. I really don't care about that part of the world and you're dealing with a people who aren't evolved. They're a barbaric, savage, undereducated people. Why the Hell is all the oil under them?

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

You want to know what pisses me off about any of these f'ng Arab countries? We go out of our way as the United States to help them in their troubles with freedom, opression...etc. We train them using advanced weaponry. We give them all they need to be successful fighting their own battles then they turn around and try to f**k us using our own weapons and training (see afghanistan) The same damn thing will happen in Libya. I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't help them but giving weapons to simple minded cultures that are willing to tuck tail and run at the first sign of adversity and go join the enemy is not something I think we should be doing as a nation.

I could be wrong and hopefully I am.
And when did they ever ask us to help with their troubles?

[BOOMERBRADLEY]

And when did they ever ask us to help with their troubles?

The UN did

[soonercruiser]

It worked for Clinton in Bosnia/Kosovo.

As long as the U.S. remains firmly in a supportive role, I'll be :pop:

Sorry to disappoint you, but MANY of my friends were deployed to the Balkans!
:rolleyes:

[soonercruiser]

"No Fly Zone"???
Are all the flies dead yet?
(no more flies in Col G's compound)

Me thinks it looks like Europe has gotten Obama into a 3rd War.
:confused:

[ouwasp]

well, it is 20+ yrs late, but there is the matter of Pan Am 103 back in Dec of '88. Khadafy has documented American blood on his hands, the cold-blooded killing of almost 200 of our fellow citizens.

I thought back in the day that this was worthy of a retributional attack. But, there was all sorts of pointless BS about international courts, trade sanctions, crap like that. Things that simply do not equal justice! :mad:

100+ Tomahawks seem like a good downpayment. Once the Libyan's AAA is degraded enough, Pres Obama ought to promise B-1 raids on Tripoli at Mach 1, about 500 ft off the ground. These shattering events would stop when the loyalists could produce Khadafy hanging limply from a noose. The Arab League would howl. VP Biden would be dispatched to tell them to **** off, that if they keep on bitching we'll unleash the Israelis on their worthless tails.

Oh man... if Obama would actually do something ballsy like the above, I might actually vote for him in '12. :O Not that it would help him, I know how Red Oklahoma is...

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

well, it is 20+ yrs late, but there is the matter of Pan Am 103 back in Dec of '88. Khadafy has documented American blood on his hands, the cold-blooded killing of almost 200 of our fellow citizens.

I thought back in the day that this was worthy of a retributional attack. But, there was all sorts of pointless BS about international courts, trade sanctions, crap like that. Things that simply do not equal justice! :mad:

100+ Tomahawks seem like a good downpayment. Once the Libyan's AAA is degraded enough, Pres Obama ought to promise B-1 raids on Tripoli at Mach 1, about 500 ft off the ground. These shattering events would stop when the loyalists could produce Khadafy hanging limply from a noose. The Arab League would howl. VP Biden would be dispatched to tell them to **** off, that if they keep on bitching we'll unleash the Israelis on their worthless tails.

Oh man... if Obama would actually do something ballsy like the above, I might actually vote for him in '12. :O Not that it would help him, I know how Red Oklahoma is...
.