Heh. That’s exactly what I typed on ew’s post.

According to Pepe Escobar, Libya is a Sarkozy pet project, planned a year or so ago, spurred by Sark’s being pissed at Gaddafi canceling some military jet contract and some large French projects in the Libya, and whispered in Sark’s ear by some Libyan expat.

I hope it doesn’t take another eight years before we get documented proof about what a huge role oil played in the decision to launch a war kinetic military action in Libya.

Agree. I duly note that as recently as a couple of weeks ago, we had some very very passionate blogging from those who *claimed* to be of the “liberal” persuasion – who passionately disputed that the “kinetic military action” had anything to do with OIL.

Jaded cynics, such as myself, who prefer to live in reality claimed it was ONLY about oil from the get-go. I said more than once that “kinetic military action” was implemented partly to pay back BP for having to use it’s stores of toxic poisonous COREXIT to “clean up” the Gulf of Mex last summer. Poor poor BP… gotta have that OIL.

And just like with the so-called Iraki “oil dividend” that was supposed to *pay for* the Irak War, the Libya “oil dividend” will go to the upper 1%, while we serfs continue to pay for the $5mill per day (the US payment) to bomb the shite out of Libyan citizens, including I might add, lots of Libyan women and kids.

So you’re saying it has taken us eight years to find out ‘for sure’ that the Iraq war had something to do with oil?

I don’t know what to say about that, other than it seems at that rate, we’ll never discover ‘for sure’ that the actions of banksters are the principal cause of our recent economic set-back, as opposed the behaviour of poor colored folk.

And we’re evidently never going to figure out whether Obama is for, or against us.

And while we’re at it, we might as well forget ever being able to confirm for sure that our elections are not being hacked in order to thwart the will of the people.

That’s alright, I’ve grown more and more sick of knowing whats going on anyway.

Well as Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney quipped after his company pleaded guilty to illegally shipping exports to Libya:

“The good Lord didn’t see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratic regimes friendly to the United States.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/24/muammar-gaddafi-us-business-lobby_n_827769.html

Of course oil’s a major factor. I like the way Chris Floyd put it:

Of course, the invasion and rape of Iraq was not only about oil. It was also about war profiteering. And “projecting dominance” over world affairs. And the deliberate militarization of American society to facilitate authoritarian rule at home and endless war abroad. And the psychosexual anxieties of witless, pampered elites who crave a specious identification with “National Greatness” (expressed through vast arrays of military hardware employed to murderous effect against largely defenseless human beings) in order to fill the holes in their withered little souls.

But oil was always a prime factor in this poisonous mix. And you can bet your bottom dollar that the same kind of “conversations” revealed in the Independent are going on right now, hugger-mugger, between politically connected oil companies and the great statesmen of the West as they seek “a fair slice of the action” in Libya’s oil fields.

http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2119-a-war-for-oil-why-yes-it-was.html

Here’s a Scott Horton interview of Alan Kuperman, who argues that Gaddafi never threatened any massacres of civilians, only that he would kill anyone who fought against him. Nor has Gaddafy committed any civilian massacres.

So all those who argued that immediate imposition of NFZ was necessary to prevent a humanitarian crisis were puffing smoke up our asses.

On edit: Corp media went along with the humanitarian disaster prevention theme, so it was not easy to sift thru the propaganda to find out what Gaddafy actually threatened.

Blue Texan’s regularly scheduled post is up: Conservatives Rush to Defend Media Against Angry Black Man

This kind of thing is why FDL has such a bad reputation at lefty blogs.

You’re only supposed to point out it’s a war for oil when it’s a Republican launching it.

Since it’s a Democrat this time, you’re supposed to say that it’s to prevent the wholesale massacre of civilians.

Like the ones that haven’t occurred in any of the cities Gaddafi has recaptured.

Yep, nothing to do with helping citizens it’s all about minerals and greed.

when you’re on, you’re SPOT on, eCahn…

my personal bet is Wikileaks will have this out very soon IF Julian Assange’s legal troubles are not intimidating them.

*sigh* I was watching Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution last night and he basically ended the show saying “America, you deserve better”. That statement fits so well with absolutely everything going on in this country.

Since it’s a Democrat this time, you’re supposed to say that it’s to prevent the wholesale massacre of civilians.

Like the ones that haven’t occurred in any of the cities Gaddafi has recaptured.

And the neocons and the neoliberals in Obama’s pentagon and White House will say, “why let the truth get in the way of a good excuse? We all KNOW Quadaffi’s insane, just like we KNEW Saddam had WMD, oh wait a second, we KNEW he had ties to the terrorists, oh, um, well… FREEDOM!!!

Since it’s a Democrat this time, you’re supposed to say that it’s to prevent the wholesale massacre of civilians.

Given the experience with Bush and Iraq, what has really stood out to me was the complete lack of evidence provided by Obama to justify a war of aggression. I get the impression that he avoided going to Congress for authorization beforehand because his alleged proof wouldn’t stand up to the light of day. It’s like what was learned from Iraq was instead of “sexing up” intel to justify war, simply don’t present the intel at all. At least with Bush intel, there was an opportunity to dissect it.

Also aside from selling oil, one of the first things the rebels did was create a central bank:
http://ntclibya.org/english/meeting-on-19-march-2011/
Oil and banking have a lot to do with this war, while civilians are mere cover.

Good commentary. And the notion that Team USA was implementing the No Fly Zone and/or drone strikes and/or bombings in order to assist/back up a “citizens” revolt against a horrible horrible awful awful dictator was just a load of crap. Team USA could give a sh*t about any serfs’ “rights” under powerful dictators. Team USA only cares about making money for the upper 1%. Period. The end.

Over at Truthout there is an essay by Ellen Brown that asks the question, “Libya: All About Oil, or All About Banking?” Ellen Brown is the author of “Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free”.

According to Brown, Libya’s Central Bank is 100% nationalized. It also has 144 tons of gold in reserve. Libya, like Iraq, chooses NOT to be a member of the Bank for International Settlements.

Also in the essay is the statement that within weeks of the uprising, Libyan rebels established their own central bank, an act perhaps unique in human history.

Anyway, it is a provocative read.

It did not take eight years to find out the role that oil companies played in Iraq. As soon as the White House refused to honor a request for documents from Cheney’s energy task force because of “national security”, it was plain as day.

A motive for Sarkozy’s action is not often acknowledged. The refugee crisis in Tunisia, aggravated by the situation in Libya means an influx of refugees into southwestern European countries exactly as in the case of France, National Front political pressure has cause the French Parliament to ban headscarves. And…the National Front leader Marine le Pen is currently slightly leading Sarkozy in the polls. As for what could have gone wrong with a French weapons deal with Libya, one need only look to the fact that two of Libya’s three Mirage fighters landed in Malta early on and were said to have been piloted by defectors who claimed that their orders were to bomb civilian areas of cities in eastern Libya. That goes down in France about as well as tear gas canisters from security attacks on peaceful protesters in Yemen, Egypt or Bahrain with the label “Made in USA” goes down here.

So Libya has $6.6 billion in gold reserves at current prices. Is all of that stored in Libya?

Integrating Libya into the global financial system by force is a much more convincing motive than oil.

A little more from Ellen Brown on the possible role that globalist banking interests are playing in Libya. Below are the final two paragraphs of her essay.

So, is this new war all about oil or all about banking? Maybe both – and water as well. With energy, water and ample credit to develop the infrastructure to access them, a nation can be free of the grip of foreign creditors. And that may be the real threat of Libya: it could show the world what is possible. Most countries don’t have oil, but new technologies are being developed that could make non-oil-producing nations energy independent, particularly if infrastructure costs are halved by borrowing from the nation’s own publicly-owned bank. Energy independence would free governments from the web of the international bankers and of the need to shift production from domestic to foreign markets to service the loans.

If the Qaddafi government goes down, it will be interesting to watch whether the new central bank joins the BIS, whether the nationalized oil industry gets sold off to investors and whether education and health care continue to be free.

Of course oil companies play a role. Oil is a vital national interest the US and every other modern nation. Oil will play a role in anything happening in any country producing oil. That’s a simple fact.

Why does it matter, though? The point in Libya isn’t to get oil companies rich. It’s to protect Libyan citizens and get rid of a psycho dictator. If oil companies profit from the situation, big effing deal. This is the real world.

That’s not surprising or relevant:

what the focus needs to be on is how the “left” can be whip-sawed into supporting an Unconstitutional war if the overt pretext is “helping” people;

also up for consideration is how to shun and marginalize war-mongers in the same way a “Progressive” that called for a 1% reduction in Medicare payments would be thoroughly trashed on all blogs, etc.

The former being an evil murderous crime, the latter a mere policy decision that one might not favor.

Until that moral vacuum is the front-page post by every “celeblogger” consider Progressiveism dead.