Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Navy SEALs have boarded and taken command of an oil tanker that was seized by three armed men at a Libyan port earlier this month, thwarting an attempt by a splinter militia group from selling nationalized Libyan oil on the black market.

A Pentagon spokesman said that the operation was carried out Sunday night on orders from President Obama in international waters southeast of Cyprus at the request of the Libyan and Cypriot governments. There were no casualties. The USS Roosevelt provided an embarkation point for the SEALs as well as helicopter support and served as a command and control and support platform.

"The Morning Glory is carrying a cargo of oil owned by the Libyan government National Oil Company. The ship and its cargo were illicitly obtained from the Libyan port of As-Sidra," Rear Adm. John Kirby's statement read in part.

The tanker had previously eluded a Libyan naval blockade around the port of Sidra, which is being held by militias who are demanding autonomy for eastern Libya. The maneuver led to the dismissal of Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zeidan by that country's parliament last week.

This past August, the rebels had seized three export terminals in the port that previously accounted for 700,000 barrels of oil per day. The struggle for control of Libya's oil wealth has been one of the main sources of strife in the country since the overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi in 2011.

The ship was docked at the port under the flag of North Korea, but officials in Pyongyang told the Associated Press they had canceled the vessel's registration after being notified that the tanker had been loaded for export in defiance of the authorities in Tripoli.

The Pentagon said that a team of sailors will take the tanker to a Libyan port. The Cypriot ministry of foreign affairs told Reuters that the vessel was heading west in the Mediterranean Sea with a U.S. military escort.

It was the second time in six months that U.S. forces had carried out an operation involving Libya. In October, a group of commandos from the U.S. Army's Delta Force captured Al Qaeda leader Nazih Abdul-Hamed al-Ruqai, known by his alias Anas al-Libi, who had been wanted in connection with the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

AZGrizFan wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/17 ... ya-tanker/

Man, if this doesn't spell out America's agenda I don't know what does. Using US Military SpecOps forces to board and raid a LIBYAN vessel full of.....wait for it.......OIL, at the request of the Libyan and Cypriot governments.

Unfuckingbelievable.

Navy SEALs have boarded and taken command of an oil tanker that was seized by three armed men at a Libyan port earlier this month, thwarting an attempt by a splinter militia group from selling nationalized Libyan oil on the black market.

A Pentagon spokesman said that the operation was carried out Sunday night on orders from President Obama in international waters southeast of Cyprus at the request of the Libyan and Cypriot governments. There were no casualties. The USS Roosevelt provided an embarkation point for the SEALs as well as helicopter support and served as a command and control and support platform.

"The Morning Glory is carrying a cargo of oil owned by the Libyan government National Oil Company. The ship and its cargo were illicitly obtained from the Libyan port of As-Sidra," Rear Adm. John Kirby's statement read in part.

The tanker had previously eluded a Libyan naval blockade around the port of Sidra, which is being held by militias who are demanding autonomy for eastern Libya. The maneuver led to the dismissal of Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zeidan by that country's parliament last week.

This past August, the rebels had seized three export terminals in the port that previously accounted for 700,000 barrels of oil per day. The struggle for control of Libya's oil wealth has been one of the main sources of strife in the country since the overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi in 2011.

The ship was docked at the port under the flag of North Korea, but officials in Pyongyang told the Associated Press they had canceled the vessel's registration after being notified that the tanker had been loaded for export in defiance of the authorities in Tripoli.

The Pentagon said that a team of sailors will take the tanker to a Libyan port. The Cypriot ministry of foreign affairs told Reuters that the vessel was heading west in the Mediterranean Sea with a U.S. military escort.

It was the second time in six months that U.S. forces had carried out an operation involving Libya. In October, a group of commandos from the U.S. Army's Delta Force captured Al Qaeda leader Nazih Abdul-Hamed al-Ruqai, known by his alias Anas al-Libi, who had been wanted in connection with the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Nowhere in there does it say act as world police, ensure the continued flow of oil, or serve as surrogate forces for issues involving other countries that should be of NO concern to us.

As a Naval Officer, I believe I would have had to refuse that order from the President as being an unlawful one. How do you explain to the parents of these men (had one or more been killed) that their sons died for a ship full of fucking OIL that did not belong to us and had nothing to do with America?

Pwns wrote:Of course...everyone spits in our face until they need some help, then they are screaming for us jump in and save them.

Chizzang wrote:

Pwns wrote:Of course...everyone spits in our face until they need some help, then they are screaming for us jump in and save them.

That was world War II Bro...
Sh!t has changed a little since then

CitadelGrad wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
That was world War II Bro...
Sh!t has changed a little since then

Are you certain about that? When I worked for a British consulting firm, many of my colleagues were from various western European countries and Australia. Several of us were working on a project in New York and had a long weekend, so we flew down to Puerto Rico to enjoy the beaches. One of the Swedish guys asked me why the United States wasn't intervening in the Balkan wars (this was before Clinton decided to bomb Belgrade). I asked him why Europeans were always so willing to fight to the last American soldier when they themselves were unwilling to risk anything at all to resolve what was a European issue.

That question led to a conversation that lasted several hours about the proper roles of the United States, EU, NATO, UN, etc. I came to the conclusion that most Europeans believe that the United States should use all of its military and economic power to serve European interests as we are instructed to do by Europeans, and the United States never has the right to act unilaterally or protect its own interests without permission from the EU or UN.

AZGrizFan wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/17 ... ya-tanker/

Man, if this doesn't spell out America's agenda I don't know what does. Using US Military SpecOps forces to board and raid a LIBYAN vessel full of.....wait for it.......OIL, at the request of the Libyan and Cypriot governments.

Unfuckingbelievable.

Navy SEALs have boarded and taken command of an oil tanker that was seized by three armed men at a Libyan port earlier this month, thwarting an attempt by a splinter militia group from selling nationalized Libyan oil on the black market.

A Pentagon spokesman said that the operation was carried out Sunday night on orders from President Obama in international waters southeast of Cyprus at the request of the Libyan and Cypriot governments. There were no casualties. The USS Roosevelt provided an embarkation point for the SEALs as well as helicopter support and served as a command and control and support platform.

"The Morning Glory is carrying a cargo of oil owned by the Libyan government National Oil Company. The ship and its cargo were illicitly obtained from the Libyan port of As-Sidra," Rear Adm. John Kirby's statement read in part.

The tanker had previously eluded a Libyan naval blockade around the port of Sidra, which is being held by militias who are demanding autonomy for eastern Libya. The maneuver led to the dismissal of Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zeidan by that country's parliament last week.

This past August, the rebels had seized three export terminals in the port that previously accounted for 700,000 barrels of oil per day. The struggle for control of Libya's oil wealth has been one of the main sources of strife in the country since the overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi in 2011.

The ship was docked at the port under the flag of North Korea, but officials in Pyongyang told the Associated Press they had canceled the vessel's registration after being notified that the tanker had been loaded for export in defiance of the authorities in Tripoli.

The Pentagon said that a team of sailors will take the tanker to a Libyan port. The Cypriot ministry of foreign affairs told Reuters that the vessel was heading west in the Mediterranean Sea with a U.S. military escort.

It was the second time in six months that U.S. forces had carried out an operation involving Libya. In October, a group of commandos from the U.S. Army's Delta Force captured Al Qaeda leader Nazih Abdul-Hamed al-Ruqai, known by his alias Anas al-Libi, who had been wanted in connection with the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Nowhere in there does it say act as world police, ensure the continued flow of oil, or serve as surrogate forces for issues involving other countries that should be of NO concern to us.

As a Naval Officer, I believe I would have had to refuse that order from the President as being an unlawful one. How do you explain to the parents of these men (had one or more been killed) that their sons died for a ship full of fucking OIL.

CitadelGrad wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
That was world War II Bro...
Sh!t has changed a little since then

Are you certain about that? When I worked for a British consulting firm, many of my colleagues were from various western European countries and Australia. Several of us were working on a project in New York and had a long weekend, so we flew down to Puerto Rico to enjoy the beaches. One of the Swedish guys asked me why the United States wasn't intervening in the Balkan wars (this was before Clinton decided to bomb Belgrade). I asked him why Europeans were always so willing to fight to the last American soldier when they themselves were unwilling to risk anything at all to resolve what was a European issue.

That question led to a conversation that lasted several hours about the proper roles of the United States, EU, NATO, UN, etc. I came to the conclusion that most Europeans believe that the United States should use all of its military and economic power to serve European interests as we are instructed to do by Europeans, and the United States never has the right to act unilaterally or protect its own interests without permission from the EU or UN.

Ibanez wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Are you certain about that? When I worked for a British consulting firm, many of my colleagues were from various western European countries and Australia. Several of us were working on a project in New York and had a long weekend, so we flew down to Puerto Rico to enjoy the beaches. One of the Swedish guys asked me why the United States wasn't intervening in the Balkan wars (this was before Clinton decided to bomb Belgrade). I asked him why Europeans were always so willing to fight to the last American soldier when they themselves were unwilling to risk anything at all to resolve what was a European issue.

That question led to a conversation that lasted several hours about the proper roles of the United States, EU, NATO, UN, etc. I came to the conclusion that most Europeans believe that the United States should use all of its military and economic power to serve European interests as we are instructed to do by Europeans, and the United States never has the right to act unilaterally or protect its own interests without permission from the EU or UN.

I was talking with some military officers from England and France several years ago and they essentially said the US is expected to respond and act. Europeans are now conditioned to look to America to resolve conflicts.

D1B wrote:

Military is white collar welfare. They're sole duty is to protect the business interests of the wealthy.

Chizzang wrote:This is usually the part where Ivytalk calls me a "Cassandra" and dismisses me with a classic French mans wave and a "Pfft" sound... while rolling his eyes

Did I capture that image for you guys..?

BUT:
Why should this event surprise ANYBODY in the whole industrial world..?
That Oil was extracted by the companies (Royal Dutch Shell / Exxon Mobil / Saudi Aramco) that our military actually works for / all evidence for the past 40 years confirms this / over and over again

D1B wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/17 ... ya-tanker/

Man, if this doesn't spell out America's agenda I don't know what does. Using US Military SpecOps forces to board and raid a LIBYAN vessel full of.....wait for it.......OIL, at the request of the Libyan and Cypriot governments.

Unfuckingbelievable.



I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Nowhere in there does it say act as world police, ensure the continued flow of oil, or serve as surrogate forces for issues involving other countries that should be of NO concern to us.

As a Naval Officer, I believe I would have had to refuse that order from the President as being an unlawful one. How do you explain to the parents of these men (had one or more been killed) that their sons died for a ship full of **** OIL.

Military is white collar welfare. They're sole duty is to protect the business interests of the wealthy.

CID1990 wrote:

D1B wrote:

Military is white collar welfare. They're sole duty is to protect the business interests of the wealthy.

Who do you think would be bitching an moaning if suddenly we cant get imported plastic crap from China to stock our WalMart shelves because some country like North Korea or Brunei suddenly decided to shut down countainer ship routes? Or iPhones from China? Or when gas hits 6 bucks a gallon because the tankers are getting picked off by Somalis before they can get to the Suez?

It's easy to blame the corporatists but its you and me who will kick someone out of office because our lives become a little less convenient to live.

D1B wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Who do you think would be bitching an moaning if suddenly we cant get imported plastic crap from China to stock our WalMart shelves because some country like North Korea or Brunei suddenly decided to shut down countainer ship routes? Or iPhones from China? Or when gas hits 6 bucks a gallon because the tankers are getting picked off by Somalis before they can get to the Suez?

It's easy to blame the corporatists but its you and me who will kick someone out of office because our lives become a little less convenient to live.

Wouldn't bother me. Globalization is killing the planet and will eventually kill us. Don't have a problem paying more for local stuff or MIA.

Everyone will have to begin accepting a lower standard of living, at least less stuff, if we're to survive.

CID1990 wrote:

D1B wrote:

Wouldn't bother me. Globalization is killing the planet and will eventually kill us. Don't have a problem paying more for local stuff or MIA.

Everyone will have to begin accepting a lower standard of living, at least less stuff, if we're to survive.

I'm with you, but you might as well wish for world peace and free pussy

never going to happen

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:This is usually the part where Ivytalk calls me a "Cassandra" and dismisses me with a classic French mans wave and a "Pfft" sound... while rolling his eyes

Did I capture that image for you guys..?

BUT:
Why should this event surprise ANYBODY in the whole industrial world..?
That Oil was extracted by the companies (Royal Dutch Shell / Exxon Mobil / Saudi Aramco) that our military actually works for / all evidence for the past 40 years confirms this / over and over again

You know, you're only allotted 50 posts where you beat this dead horse and then I get to point something out for you.

Protecting commerce is one of the primary traditional functions of organized militaries since the days of the ancient Greeks. Defending the home turf is number one, but usually when the army is shooting its bows and arrows or cannons it is in defense of trade routes and protecting Country A's ability to safely see its goods into Country B's harbor. It has always been so.

Heck, even an amateur student of military history knows Alfred Thayer Mahan. Go have a look- the sole purpose of a blue water navy is keeping open the "sea lanes" of commerce and communication.

You're tilting at a windmill as if it is some kind of aberration, when in fact it is precisely the function of militaries since time immemorial.

Now, we can find issues with the fact that the US has volunteered to to hundreds of other countries' dirty work for them (thus sparing them the expense), and I'd be right with you on that. I would also be right there with you in calling out the neoconservatives and their liberal interventionist bedfellows when they claim this intervention or that intervention is for freedom and democracy.

But let's don't go all Spandos over something that isnt news- countries use their militaries to protect commerce as a matter of policy and there is no need to hide it because it has been written doctrine for hundreds of years.

Chizzang wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Are you certain about that? When I worked for a British consulting firm, many of my colleagues were from various western European countries and Australia. Several of us were working on a project in New York and had a long weekend, so we flew down to Puerto Rico to enjoy the beaches. One of the Swedish guys asked me why the United States wasn't intervening in the Balkan wars (this was before Clinton decided to bomb Belgrade). I asked him why Europeans were always so willing to fight to the last American soldier when they themselves were unwilling to risk anything at all to resolve what was a European issue.

That question led to a conversation that lasted several hours about the proper roles of the United States, EU, NATO, UN, etc. I came to the conclusion that most Europeans believe that the United States should use all of its military and economic power to serve European interests as we are instructed to do by Europeans, and the United States never has the right to act unilaterally or protect its own interests without permission from the EU or UN.

Well that settles it then....

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
You know, you're only allotted 50 posts where you beat this dead horse and then I get to point something out for you.

Protecting commerce is one of the primary traditional functions of organized militaries since the days of the ancient Greeks. Defending the home turf is number one, but usually when the army is shooting its bows and arrows or cannons it is in defense of trade routes and protecting Country A's ability to safely see its goods into Country B's harbor. It has always been so.

Heck, even an amateur student of military history knows Alfred Thayer Mahan. Go have a look- the sole purpose of a blue water navy is keeping open the "sea lanes" of commerce and communication.

You're tilting at a windmill as if it is some kind of aberration, when in fact it is precisely the function of militaries since time immemorial.

Now, we can find issues with the fact that the US has volunteered to to hundreds of other countries' dirty work for them (thus sparing them the expense), and I'd be right with you on that. I would also be right there with you in calling out the neoconservatives and their liberal interventionist bedfellows when they claim this intervention or that intervention is for freedom and democracy.

But let's don't go all Spandos over something that isnt news- countries use their militaries to protect commerce as a matter of policy and there is no need to hide it because it has been written doctrine for hundreds of years.

Well played sir...

I was kind of more making a spandos point beyond your point (but thank you very much)

Such as the 1954 United Fruit Coup in your favorite country Guatemala
(Iraq Today / Libya Today / Venezuela Tomorrow)
As an example of where we actually overthrow a democratically elected official or the powers that be in efforts to establish control of said countries resources...
(Afghanistan Rare Earth Mining Rights not withstanding)

There... hows that
Does that clear things up

Since the very well documented 1950's central and South American takeovers
Right up to today's modern examples where we use terminology like "democracy and Freedom"
Instead of "overthrow" and "Control of resources"

CitadelGrad wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

Well that settles it then....

It does settle it. You're forgetting that I was also an Army officer for seven years. I've been all over Europe and much of Asia, and have had much the same conversation with foreign military officers and civilians. Their views are astonishingly uniform.

AZGrizFan wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/17 ... ya-tanker/

Man, if this doesn't spell out America's agenda I don't know what does. Using US Military SpecOps forces to board and raid a LIBYAN vessel full of.....wait for it.......OIL, at the request of the Libyan and Cypriot governments.

Unfuckingbelievable.

Navy SEALs have boarded and taken command of an oil tanker that was seized by three armed men at a Libyan port earlier this month, thwarting an attempt by a splinter militia group from selling nationalized Libyan oil on the black market.

A Pentagon spokesman said that the operation was carried out Sunday night on orders from President Obama in international waters southeast of Cyprus at the request of the Libyan and Cypriot governments. There were no casualties. The USS Roosevelt provided an embarkation point for the SEALs as well as helicopter support and served as a command and control and support platform.

"The Morning Glory is carrying a cargo of oil owned by the Libyan government National Oil Company. The ship and its cargo were illicitly obtained from the Libyan port of As-Sidra," Rear Adm. John Kirby's statement read in part.

The tanker had previously eluded a Libyan naval blockade around the port of Sidra, which is being held by militias who are demanding autonomy for eastern Libya. The maneuver led to the dismissal of Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zeidan by that country's parliament last week.

This past August, the rebels had seized three export terminals in the port that previously accounted for 700,000 barrels of oil per day. The struggle for control of Libya's oil wealth has been one of the main sources of strife in the country since the overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi in 2011.

The ship was docked at the port under the flag of North Korea, but officials in Pyongyang told the Associated Press they had canceled the vessel's registration after being notified that the tanker had been loaded for export in defiance of the authorities in Tripoli.

The Pentagon said that a team of sailors will take the tanker to a Libyan port. The Cypriot ministry of foreign affairs told Reuters that the vessel was heading west in the Mediterranean Sea with a U.S. military escort.

It was the second time in six months that U.S. forces had carried out an operation involving Libya. In October, a group of commandos from the U.S. Army's Delta Force captured Al Qaeda leader Nazih Abdul-Hamed al-Ruqai, known by his alias Anas al-Libi, who had been wanted in connection with the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Nowhere in there does it say act as world police, ensure the continued flow of oil, or serve as surrogate forces for issues involving other countries that should be of NO concern to us.

As a Naval Officer, I believe I would have had to refuse that order from the President as being an unlawful one. How do you explain to the parents of these men (had one or more been killed) that their sons died for a ship full of fucking OIL.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/17 ... ya-tanker/

Man, if this doesn't spell out America's agenda I don't know what does. Using US Military SpecOps forces to board and raid a LIBYAN vessel full of.....wait for it.......OIL, at the request of the Libyan and Cypriot governments.

Unfuckingbelievable.



I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Nowhere in there does it say act as world police, ensure the continued flow of oil, or serve as surrogate forces for issues involving other countries that should be of NO concern to us.

As a Naval Officer, I believe I would have had to refuse that order from the President as being an unlawful one. How do you explain to the parents of these men (had one or more been killed) that their sons died for a ship full of fucking OIL.

Correction: You wouldn't have refused that order if it came from Bush.

AZGrizFan wrote: Yeah, you're right. You know me better than I do.