US Navy now tasked with policing the world's oil fields.

What else is new? US military has been backing up our access to fossil fuels for my lifetime.
 
steingar said:
What else is new? US military has been backing up our access to fossil fuels for my lifetime.
Click to expand...

This goes far beyond that, this has nothing to do with our access to the oil. This is getting ourselves involved in a three way dispute between two factional governments in Lybia, and North Korea.

This is involving ourselves in a civil war, while at the same time, depending on the waters they were in, committing an act of war against N. Korea.
 
Last edited:
And guess who is paying for this? We should have taken payment for the Iraq war in trade....pull up the tankers to the oil fields, with US Navy protection, and say fill it up please.
 
Henning said:
This goes far beyond that, this has nothing to do with our access to the oil. This is getting ourselves involved in a three way dispute between two factional governments in Lybia, and North Korea.

This is involving ourselves in a civil war, while at the same time, depending on the waters they were in, committing an act of war against N. Korea.
Click to expand...
It was flying their flag, but North Korea has disavowed the ship.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-glory-near-cyprus-no-one-hurt-pentagon-says/
 
Henning said:
This goes far beyond that, this has nothing to do with our access to the oil. This is getting ourselves involved in a three way dispute between two factional governments in Lybia, and North Korea.

This is involving ourselves in a civil war, while at the same time, depending on the waters they were in, committing an act of war against N. Korea.
Click to expand...

Who the **** is advising Obama on this ****?
 
N747JB said:
We are getting the oil, but aren't we paying market price for it? Not exactly recouping any costs with that arrangement, are we? :dunno:
Click to expand...

We are paying the price to run our Navy to do the bidding of others. Either we are now the World Police, or we have a mercenary military that we are forgetting to charge for.
 
Henning said:
We are paying the price to run our Navy to do the bidding of others. Either we are now the World Police, or we have a mercenary military that we are forgetting to charge for.
Click to expand...

Team America has been the World Police since 1945. Before that we were just regional cops starting with the TR years.

When we act in that role, people ***** and moan that we are overstepping out bounds and if we don't, people ***** and moan about us ignoring the plight of others.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Team America has been the World Police since 1945. Before that we were just regional cops starting with the TR years.

When we act in that role, people ***** and moan that we are overstepping out bounds and if we don't, people ***** and moan about us ignoring the plight of others.
Click to expand...

Yep, but no one wants to pony up the money for having a world police force. I think that we should get 50% of the booty of selling both the oil and the ship.
 
Henning said:
Yep, but no one wants to pony up the money for having a world police force. I think that we should get 50% of the booty of selling both the oil and the ship.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the days of prize money are long gone.
 
steingar said:
What else is new? US military has been backing up our access to fossil fuels for my lifetime.
Click to expand...

Consider this: we do not send in SEAL teams to secure a ship full of oil.

There was most likely some indication that something else was onboard.....which is probably why NK is disclaiming the ship.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Consider this: we do not send in SEAL teams to secure a ship full of oil.

There was most likely some indication that something else was onboard.....which is probably why NK is disclaiming the ship.
Click to expand...

Actually this has been a known situation even before the ship left port, the Libyans said they would SINK the ship if it tried to sail while it was being loaded. We likely intervened to prevent the oil spill. I bet there is nothing on that ship except Sahara crude. I think the NKs disavowed the ship because they did not want to involve themselves in a political squabble over a seized ship with the US Navy.
 
Henning said:
Actually this has been a known situation even before the ship left port, the Libyans said they would SINK the ship if it tried to sail while it was being loaded. We likely intervened to prevent the oil spill. I bet there is nothing on that ship except Sahara crude. I think the NKs disavowed the ship because they did not want to involve themselves in a political squabble over a seized ship with the US Navy.
Click to expand...

We do not waste NSW resources to prevent oil spills.

I guarantee there is more to the story.
 
Henning said:
I wish indeed to hear the full story on this, because it's getting old wasting public resource on private causes.
Click to expand...

Chances are you, and even I for that matter, will never hear it.

Whether or not it is a waste of money depends on your political viewpoint. I seriously doubt, however, that it was for a private cause.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Chances are you, and even I for that matter, will never hear it.

Whether or not it is a waste of money depends on your political viewpoint. I seriously doubt, however, that it was for a private cause.
Click to expand...

It wasn't in defense of the US, I'll bet you that, anything else is a private cause even if between politicians.
 
bartmc said:
Why wouldn't we? The US government makes more off a gallon of oil than the oil companies.
Click to expand...

Not foreign oil, only what they have to pay government lease rates on. Then you have to look at which division of the energy conglomerate you are talking about.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Chances are you, and even I for that matter, will never hear it.

Whether or not it is a waste of money depends on your political viewpoint. I seriously doubt, however, that it was for a private cause.
Click to expand...

There you go again, using facts. :rolleyes:

This is PoA, we must keep the thread going using wild assumptions and half truths.

:rofl:
 
RotorAndWing said:
There you go again, using facts. :rolleyes:

This is PoA, we must keep the thread going using wild assumptions and half truths.

:rofl:
Click to expand...

What fact was presented? I didn't see a fact in the entire statement, just supposition and assumption. "We don't do that" is not a fact, nor accurate.
 
Henning said:
What fact was presented? I didn't see a fact in the entire statement
Click to expand...

Correct. I did not provide any facts. Just a healthy dose of realism.

It's like the arguments about the moon landing being faked on a Hollywood backlot. You are going to believe whatever you want to believe.
 
Screw N. Korea. There's a war that needs revisiting. We moan about Fred Phelps and all his evil and people he's hurt...well, 'ol Fred Phelps doesn't hold a candle to the evil going on over there.

They have a dead guy as the Nations legal political leader for christ's sake! Seriously...those people need killing / saving. Former for those standing in the way of later.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Correct. I did not provide any facts. Just a healthy dose of realism.

It's like the arguments about the moon landing being faked on a Hollywood backlot. You are going to believe whatever you want to believe.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the moon landings were faked, when the Navy says it did this at the behest of the Libyans and Cypriots, I take what they said at face value. When they said it's about "stolen oil", and it was leaving Libya loaded, I believe it was about oil. If it was about weapons, they would have stormed the ship pulling in with them. This is straight up piracy patrol with no US interest involved. We sent SEALs in on the Maersk Alabama, so it's not new ground for a ship and SEAL team to be tasked to anti piracy, but the Maersk Alabama was flying a US flag, so Maersk is paying for that protection. I don't mind having a mercenary fleet and armed forces in general, but we pay a ****load of money to build and maintain that capacity. When we use it at the behest of a foreign nation, especially a hostile foreign nation, we taxpayers should be recouping some of that investment.
 
When I see something like this, I ask myself -- "How would we react if someone like Russia or China did the exact same thing?"

In this case Libya doesn't have the political stability or military clout to do it themselves, so they subcontract out their defense. Like the Swiss air Force; if it happens after business hours, call the French or Italians.

Problem is, I don't think we actually charge for this service. If you're going to rent out our military, I don't see a huge problem with that -- within reason -- but we should be getting compensated and I'm sure we're not. Some bureaucrat decides we'll do something to "build goodwill" where there never will be any; we're simply seen as useful suckers who are still to be hated and killed whenever possible. So we get neither money, nor oil, nor goodwill.

As for the North Koreans, they're insane but not stupid. I'm sure that tanker or the money generated from its sale would have been welcomed with open arms had it gotten that far, but of course they had some face-saving deniability built into the process.

So if the Libyans had called in the Russians or the Chinese to do this instead of the US, I doubt there would be much uproar from the US. The only real difference is that they would have gotten paid, one way or another. We won't.
 
Here's how I see it,

We have a young government in Libya that we support and they have a problem with a rebel group. We have a rouge nation that we put sanctions on in North Korea. The rebel group we don't like stole a ship and some oil and was going to sell it to the North Koreans that we don't like and there by violate the sanctions.

The Libyans don't have a Navy Seals, Special Ops type force so they were just going to blow up and sink the ship. They asked for our help to avoid an environmental mess and a total waste and we gave it to them to support a fledgling government that we do like and also as a sanction enforcement.

I read the articles attached and no where did it say we did it all for free. How does anyone here know for a fact that we got nothing in exchange? Who says we didn't invoice for services rendered? Who says we didn't get a regional political favor in return? Maybe the Navy got to keep the oil in the ship for their trouble, or got a credit at the gas pump.

Just more POA speculation based on an incomplete and brief news clip. Just in this case, we are convinced that because it's the US, because it's the military and because Obama is in charge that we must have screwed ourselves.:rolleyes:
 
Henning said:
when the Navy says it did this at the behest of the Libyans and Cypriots, I take what they said at face value.
Click to expand...

Well there's your problem right there.

All I can say Henning, is that not all things are as they seem (or reported). You can take that however you want.
 
Captain said:
Screw N. Korea. There's a war that needs revisiting. We moan about Fred Phelps and all his evil and people he's hurt...well, 'ol Fred Phelps doesn't hold a candle to the evil going on over there.

They have a dead guy as the Nations legal political leader for christ's sake! Seriously...those people need killing / saving. Former for those standing in the way of later.
Click to expand...

No question that it's an evil regime, but is it worth starting World War III over? The Chinese will not tolerate foreign troops in North Korea.
 
FormerHangie said:
No question that it's an evil regime, but is it worth starting World War III over? The Chinese will not tolerate foreign troops in North Korea.
Click to expand...

From the comfort of a warm, safe and cozy armchair. Hell yes! Bring it on. Armageddon baby!

In the real world... not a chance and so here we are.
 
FormerHangie said:
No question that it's an evil regime, but is it worth starting World War III over? The Chinese will not tolerate foreign troops in North Korea.
Click to expand...

I agree. We should just stay out of it. There's no good side, so don't bother trying to pick one. Just stay the hell out of it.

Either that, or nuke them both and be done with it. And if China has a problem with that, nuke them, too.

And then have lunch.

-Rich
 
We used Seals to rescue a crew of a freighter hijacked by Somalian pirates. I don't recall a lot of complaining about that, from American citizens.

This intervention seems comparable, and maybe more compelling because of the potential for an environmentally ruinous oil spill in the Mediterranean.
 
NoHeat said:
We used Seals to rescue a crew of a freighter hijacked by Somalian pirates. I don't recall a lot of complaining about that, from American citizens.

This intervention seems comparable, and maybe more compelling because of the potential for an environmentally ruinous oil spill in the Mediterranean.
Click to expand...

Because that was on an AMERICAN FLAGGED SHIP! Maersk pays big tax money for that flag to the US Government, in exchange they get protection from the US Navy. That is how it is supposed to be, that's why military navies were first created, to protect their merchant navy.

This was a Saudi controlled ship flying a N Korean flag paying the N. Koreans tax money.
 
Good point re. US flagged Maersk.

However, you can bet the recent hijackers were not tax-paying N. Koreans. They were Libyans.

Flying fake flags is a practice with a maritime history of hundreds of years.
 
NoHeat said:
Good point re. US flagged Maersk.

However, you can bet the recent hijackers were not tax-paying N. Koreans. They were Libyans.

Flying fake flags is a practice with a maritime history of hundreds of years.
Click to expand...

No, the were Saudis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top