What's Going On In Libya?

[Nihil Obstat]

In such a scenario you'd want to differentiate probably between major dictatorships (i.e. Stalinist Russia and potentially Rome), and minor dictatorships (Pol Pot, Tito, etc.). It may be more accurate to say that all minor dictatorships have a sponsor, while the major ones sponsor minor ones.

Iunno, just a thought.

[kujo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1300855557' post='2222607']
In such a scenario you'd want to differentiate probably between major dictatorships (i.e. Stalinist Russia and potentially Rome), and minor dictatorships (Pol Pot, Tito, etc.). It may be more accurate to say that all minor dictatorships have a sponsor, while the major ones sponsor minor ones.

Iunno, just a thought.
[/quote]

Good thought.

[4588686]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1300855346' post='2222605']
Very interesting topic, though. I'm actually an academic, so it might be worth doing the research and making it into an article. If I do,[b] I'll make sure to credit you in some way![/b]
[/quote]


[img]http://www.solarnavigator.net/history/explorers_history/winston_churchill_v_for_victory.jpg[/img]




If you ever do write it I'd be interesting to see what you find.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Hasan

[4588686]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1300855557' post='2222607']
In such a scenario you'd want to differentiate probably between major dictatorships (i.e. Stalinist Russia and potentially Rome), and minor dictatorships (Pol Pot, Tito, etc.). It may be more accurate to say that all minor dictatorships have a sponsor, while the major ones sponsor minor ones.

Iunno, just a thought.
[/quote]

Minor dictatorships sponsor other minor dictatorships. (Libya sponsored plenty of despotic governments and movements)

Major dictatorship are sponsored themselves. Again, depending on how you define your terms.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1300855557' post='2222607']
In such a scenario you'd want to differentiate probably between major dictatorships (i.e. Stalinist Russia and potentially Rome), and minor dictatorships (Pol Pot, Tito, etc.). It may be more accurate to say that all minor dictatorships have a sponsor, while the major ones sponsor minor ones.

Iunno, just a thought.
[/quote]
I'm reminded of the Triumvirate in Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar," and Antony's dismissal of Lepidus as an unworthy member of the triumvirate, useful to be kept around only as Antony and Octavius's puppet.

[quote] [i]Exit LEPIDUS[/i]

ANTONY

This is a slight unmeritable man,
Meet to be sent on errands: is it fit,
The three-fold world divided, he should stand
One of the three to share it?

OCTAVIUS

So you thought him;
And took his voice who should be prick'd to die,
In our black sentence and proscription.

ANTONY

Octavius, I have seen more days than you:
And though we lay these honours on this man,
To ease ourselves of divers slanderous loads,
He shall but bear them as the arse bears gold,
To groan and sweat under the business,
Either led or driven, as we point the way;
And having brought our treasure where we will,
Then take we down his load, and turn him off,
Like to the empty arse, to shake his ears,
And graze in commons.

OCTAVIUS

You may do your will;
But he's a tried and valiant soldier.

ANTONY

So is my horse, Octavius; and for that
I do appoint him store of provender:
It is a creature that I teach to fight,
To wind, to stop, to run directly on,
His corporal motion govern'd by my spirit.
And, in some taste, is Lepidus but so;
He must be taught and train'd and bid go forth;
A barren-spirited fellow; one that feeds
On abjects, orts and imitations,
Which, out of use and staled by other men,
Begin his fashion: do not talk of him,
But as a property. And now, Octavius,
Listen great things:--Brutus and Cassius
Are levying powers: we must straight make head:
Therefore let our alliance be combined,
Our best friends made, our means stretch'd
And let us presently go sit in council,
How covert matters may be best disclosed,
And open perils surest answered.

OCTAVIUS

Let us do so: for we are at the stake,
And bay'd about with many enemies;
And some that smile have in their hearts, I fear,
Millions of mischiefs.[/quote]

Edited March 23, 2011 by Era Might

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1300835736' post='2222463']
You do realize that the U.S. imports about 44,000 barrels of oil a day to the U.S., or less than 1% of its total oil imports, right?[/quote]

Say again? The U.S. imports X amount of oil to into the U.S., less than 1% of the U.S.'s total oil imports? That is not a complete sentence.


[quote]The Chinese, French and British all import WAY more than that. And the oil in Libya is "owned" accordingly, with European and Asian companies owning most of the refineries. And while Libya is certainly the most oil-rich country in Africa, our financial stakes are not currently embedded there, to a large degree.
So you can keep your cynical, Michael Moore-nonsense in your fat head, mmk?
[/quote]

How can the State improve its stake in a land without first seeding it with bombs, thereby giving some form of "legitimacy" to installing a new puppet? Qadaffi simply isn't happy with the United State. Oil would get much cheaper if he were gone.

~Sternhauser

[kujo]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1300914164' post='2222733']
Say again? The U.S. imports X amount of oil to into the U.S., less than 1% of the U.S.'s total oil imports? That is not a complete sentence.




How can the State improve its stake in a land without first seeding it with bombs, thereby giving some form of "legitimacy" to installing a new puppet? Qadaffi simply isn't happy with the United State. Oil would get much cheaper if he were gone.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

I'm sorry, Stern. I wasn't aware that your deductive capabilities were so feeble.

My mistake was failing to complete my thought: the U.S. only imports 44,000 barrels of Libyan oil each day, or roughly 1% of it's total amount.

As to your second point, you make the assertion that "oil would get much cheaper" in Gaddafi's absence. Okay...prove it. First, you most show causality between the presence of that man and the price of oil. You'll also have to determine what effect he has on the oil refineries he and his government do not own. Let me know when you've got that all done, mmk?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1300938387' post='2222864']
I'm sorry, Stern. I wasn't aware that your deductive capabilities were so feeble.[/quote]
Ouch!

You're threatening my bastage status around here man.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1300939007' post='2222867']
Ouch!

You're threatening my bastage status around here man.
[/quote]
Srsly.

[Jesus_lol]

Im not sure how people can think that even 1% of an industry as absolutely huge and profitable as the oil industry is, is NOT A BIG DEAL. a 1% share of the fuel that keeps everyone on earth going places day in and day out, providing billions in revenue? thats a big deal.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1300946118' post='2222910']
Im not sure how people can think that even 1% of an industry as absolutely huge and profitable as the oil industry is, is NOT A BIG DEAL. a 1% share of the fuel that keeps everyone on earth going places day in and day out, providing billions in revenue? thats a big deal.
[/quote]
44,000 barrels of oil could easily be covered by other sources with a minimal ramp up in production.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1300938387' post='2222864']
the U.S. only imports 44,000 barrels of Libyan oil each day, or roughly 1% of it's total amount.

As to your second point, you make the assertion that "oil would get much cheaper" in Gaddafi's absence. Okay...prove it. First, you most show causality between the presence of that man and the price of oil. You'll also have to determine what effect he has on the oil refineries he and his government do not own. Let me know when you've got that all done, mmk?
[/quote]

Kujo, do you believe there is any call for your trying to project such an ungentlemanly tone?

Prove it? That won't happen. But then, that doesn't mean that you are correct. Political science and economics are related fields in the study of human action. There are not cut and dried formulae for every possible human motive and for every act that can be taken to secure a desired end. There are only tendencies. You appear to be taking politicians at their word. When has that ever tended to be a good idea?

The way you speak, you seem to assume that the fact that the United State only imports .5 to 1% of its total amount from Libya is some sort of static axiom. It isn't. Currently, Americans officially purchase 0% of their cigars from Cuba. Why? Because the guy in power there is a jerk, and the economically-ignorant jerks in power [i]here[/i] won't let up on the embargo, despite the fact that the people in Cuba (about whom they allegedly care) would be better fed and seek even more economic freedom, leading to an undermining of the Cuban State from the bottom up. As a related example, the average Chinese is much more free and prosperous since trade with the U.S. was re-instated.

Now you need to look at the reasons [i]why[/i] so "little" oil is imported from Libya. First, there's OPEC's assigned oil production allocation. It's a restriction on how much each country can produce. There isn't a tremendous amount of oil being produced by Libya in the first place, compared to places like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and the vast majority (over 80%) of its oil export is going to Europe. (France and England, the United State's "coalition members" in the "humanitarian mission" come to mind.) Once they get their claws into the Libyan State, and install a puppet, the "foreign owned" companies will fall into line, too. The puppet will be the second to final arbiter of what goes where. Britain and the United State, under which a few of the major "Libyan" oil companies are based, do not want their fields falling into the hands of a devil they don't know.

A walk through history shows that prohibitions of all sorts lead to higher prices for the prohibited commodities. While there is currently no official embargo or prohibition against Libyan oil (that we know about), there is a high likelihood that oil is indirectly "prohibited" from a more massive importation simply by the pride of life of the agents of the United State, who do not want to stoop to purchasing much oil from a place ruled by a dictator such as Qadaffi: the same reason that someone would refuse to give his business to a shopkeeper who has everything you want, because the shopkeeper is a jerk. Now, when the shopkeeper dies, and the store is under new management, you would be much more likely to begin shopping there on a regular basis. You may think things are much more complicated on the international level. I don't understand why there is such a tendency to ascribe the idea "it's inscrutably complicated for all but politicians and Harvard professors" into every affair, interpersonal and international. It's as though it serves as some excuse for not exercising more control over one's own life, and instead, turning over the reins to the "experts." I assure you, it's not that complicated. Politicians are petulant children writ large. They love power. They love public praise. They love being treated like royalty all over the world. They love money, insofar as it buys them power.

~Sternhauser

Edited March 24, 2011 by Sternhauser

[add]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1300973111' post='2222936']
44,000 barrels of oil could easily be covered by other sources with a minimal ramp up in production.
[/quote]

the missing 44,000 barrels, sold to the US + the amount of oil sold to others, of oil could easily drive up the cost at the pump to astronomical cost per gallon.
ergo, the cost of gasoline way up!

[Winchester]

[quote name='apparently' timestamp='1301004125' post='2223041']
the missing 44,000 barrels, sold to the US + the amount of oil sold to others, of oil could easily drive up the cost at the pump to astronomical cost per gallon.
ergo, the cost of gasoline way up!
[/quote]
Wrong.

Taxes, drilling prohibitions in the US and stupid speculation drives the price way up. 44,000 barrels of oil is nothing.

[AudreyGrace]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1301004508' post='2223045']
44,000 barrels of oil is nothing.
[/quote]

Well.. this is false. 44,000 barrels is........... 44,000 barrels.