War On Libya - Here We Are Again

Remove all ads!

It is true that it was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait that sparked the conflict, but there were most certainly US forces that went into Iraq as well. In fact, I seem to remember something about the offensive into Iraq lasting exactly 100 hours. And while I don't remember the exact number of troops we sent in during the Gulf War, it was certainly at least in the tens of thousands.

Of course prices go up whenever there is a shortage. It's not like that the British, French, and Italians just stop using oil - they buy from others and thus increase demand for oil from other markets. I was responding specifically to Snook's question of why he didn't see "no blood for oil" signs popping up everywhere, so I was simply stating that perhaps this was because we don't purchase oil from Libya. We're paying more for oil now, but it's because others are purchasing oil from the same markets we are, not because we were using Libyan oil, and all of the sudden we cannot get any more of it.

 

I don't remember, it's been so long [which is why I commented that "I could be wrong"]. But it does seem to me, now that I think more on it, that there might have been American troops in Iraq for about a week. But the Gulf War was not really an "invasion" of Iraq, but a move to throw Saddam out of Kuwait.

I was really only making the point that the price of oil was tied to the world market, whether we import directly from that country or not. And don't forget, it's almost "hurricane season" and you now what that means.

 

That we're due for another BP oil well explosion?

 

That's one of the biggest excuses they use to raise the price of gas -- "There MIGHT be a storm in the Gulf!"

http://247wallst.com/2010/04/12/summer-2010-big-hurricanes-high-oil-prices/

It's not all about supply and demand, but fear and speculation plays a part, whether there really is an actual storm, or not, is besides the point....

 

I thought prices went up in the summer because demand increased. People travel more in the summer on vacation and the like. I'm sure hurricanes are a factor, but I thought demand was the driving factor (pun intended) in the cost of gas.

 

In the first Gulf War, I believe we lined up the troops south of Kuwait along the Kuwaiti southern border with Saudi, showing a strong front there and then attacked from the south as a feint intially, only to draw Iraq in and then we pulled an end around to the west with the bulk of our forces fighting in both Kuwait and Iraq. I believe we got within 150 miles of Baghdad before withdrawing to Kuwait under ceasefire.

---------- Added 0 hours, 14 minutes and 20 seconds later... ----------

 

Feel free to agree, but I think most of her points are moot. Seriously, man, don't you find most of her post simple partisan hackery? You are no fan of Obama, and neither is she, but a lot of what she writes strikes me as simple BS regardless of political allegiance.

Spoiler

The US has some interest in what happens in Libya, obviously. The oil deposits are the biggest thing, and I think there was the embarassment it would suffer if, after Washington and everyone else wanted Gaddafi gone, he remained in power and crushed the opposition. Overall, yeah, it wasn't a life-or-death affair for the US of A, but it's not like Libya is being unfairly singled out. Why didn't the US interfere in Sudan, for example? Simple, no oil. Why wasn't it more forceful in condemning abuse in Bahrain and elsewhere? Simple, US allies. Why was Obama so harsh on poor wittwe Egypt? Simple: he wasn't*, and didn't fully back the protests until after they won.

Should the US have started bombing Libya? I'd likely say "no", but then again, the US has so far been content to keep it pretty limited. Yes, they essentially gave military support to the rebels. Yes, this may come to bite us all in the rear. However, this isn't a full invasion like in Iraq, either. So why didn't it Obama act in Iran? Here's my guess - because it would have had a lot more repercussion that aren't there in Libya - from facing a much more dangerous army to consolidating the people in support of the regime (no one likes an aggressor) to endangering the lives and legitimacy of the protesters, and then some. So the US should have invaded Iran over that? I doubt anyone would support Obama if he did it. Bombing wouldn't do much to stop what was happening anyway, but you'd get most of the above negatives regardless. If the US wasn't going to go to war over it, why should have Obama mouthed off to no effect? There's no point in his mouth writing checks the US can't (or rather, won't) cash - it damages the prestige of the president and the country when its bluff is called.

As I see it, the only war the US could claim to have "justly" started was the one in Afghanistan in 2001, for which Ms Coulter managed to forget there was broad bipartisan support. Ms Coulter's "darling" war in Iraq wasn't exactly started on unassailable proof, and as time went on the facade of "We had to take out a threat" became even more ragged - which is when serious opposition to the war gained momentum. Oh, and the Iraq war SURE served American interests - right now we have a much more antagonistic Iran (whose bright idea was the whole "Axis of Evil" campaign anyway?), right next to a Shia-run, much less powerful Iraq that is still a tick away from a new wave of sectarian violence, with a nearly independent Kurdish north that pisses Ankara off to no end. What could be better? But hey, don't believe me - just ask the Brits or the Spaniards how much safer they are now after Saddam was gone.

Then again, I rather doubt any of the above matters to Ann Coulter. Obama is a Democrat, ergo he must look bad.

*: "“We are deeply concerned about attacks on the media and peaceful demonstrators,” Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs stated. “We repeat our strong call for restraint.” . That was the condemnation.