No, not in terms of being a major producer of oil. Libya is the 3rd largest producer of oil in all of Africa and has the largest amount of proven reserves in the entire continent. Bahrain: Bahrain has stabilized its oil production at about 40,000 barrels (6,400 m³) per day, and reserves are expected to last 10 to 15 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Bahrain That's nothing. Thus, the international community won't be letting freedom ring in Bahrain.
Looks like the Bahraini Foreign minister ain't that good at Lying! Click on the link to watch how a group of journalists embarrass him. http://twitvid.com/HFNC7 RT @ibnkan Watch my video on #twitvid And....Poor Policemen!!!! <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xIVB2zzwKQA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Even this is overstated. As I understand it, most of Bahrain's oil comes from a shared oilfield with Saudi. Take that oilfield out and Bahrain, a country of around 1m people, is a major net importer of oil.
I highly doubt oil has anything at all to do with the US / West stance on Bahrain. The 5th fleet being based there has much more to do with it than oil.
And relations with Saudi Arabia. They sent soldiers there. So, for us to take a stance on Bahrain would be an affront to Saudi Arabia, which is probably not something we want to do. I don't really expect we're going to find religion and all of a sudden start forcing our villain-friends out of their dictatorships. I can reconcile myself to a soft policy on places like Bahrain, Yemen or Camaroon. But, I really would like to see us shift into neutral at least with dictators. Stop having these embarassing relationships with them (Saud included).
I also don't think it has anything to do with whether there is oil in Bahrain or not. But while what is happening in Bahrain is terrible, there seems to be a qualitative difference to bombing demonstrators from fighter planes...I guess?
Bahrain is so small it wouldn't need to deploy fighter planes I think. The entire country is 750km2, a huge portion of which is not inhabited by citizens. Also, Bahraini protestors are not nearly as well-armed as the Libyan protestors, not even close. I don't think think they would hesitate to use the same amount of force on these protestors as Gaddhafi did in Libya if it were necessary.
You're probably right. So, since you were in favor of military action against Gaddafi, would you want it against the Bahrain rulers as well?
You don't actually need military action against Bahrain dicatators. You only need Obama or Clinton to pick up the phone and order their so-called king to stop whatever he's doing. They don't even have a proper army!
Yeah..Bahraini protesters are not even armed, they are just protesting peacefully demanding freedom and reforms.
Hell yes I would. However, I don't think it's necessary. All it takes is a phonecall. Ofcourse, Saudi and to a lesser extent the UAE are driving this push against the protestors moreso than the rulers of Bahrain themselves. They are obsessive about shiites being eternally loyal to Iran, and Saudi fears a domino effect since Bahrain is right next to the Eastern region where Saudi shiites live and where much of the oil is located. They don't want to help the shiites in Bahrain. The plan is to keep them down in the mud. If that WASN'T the case, they would allow Bahrainis more freedom to seek employment in Saudi or UAE. The reality is that no one wants them. Shiites are oppressed as heck in Saudi, while in the UAE the government keeps an extremely extremely close eye on them ALL THE TIME. The truth is, the US does not want to alienate Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia, and is unsure whether to believe that shiites would be loyal to Iran. A quick look at wikileaks re UAE-Iran and Saudi-Iran will tell you exactly what's going on here.
I'm not sure if you're being serious or sarcastic. They are not armed like the Libyan protestors, but they are armed. They are using whatever they find, objects that regular people have lying around the house or on the streets. At the same time they are not acting peacefully right now, and only a douchebag would blame them for that. The first offender is the government for denying them rights since forever. The second offender is the government for reacting violently to the peaceful protests. The third offender is the government for telling them to go home and to START a dialogue with the direct threat of more murder. The fourth offender is the government again for shooting someone attending the funeral of someone who got shot the previous day. The fifth offender is the protestors for acting out, but killing ZERO people. The sixth offender was the government for denying medical services to the protestors. Then the protestors got violent. It is an unfortunate but normal reaction. Imagine your rage if you were denied medical services in your country. Imagine your rage if you were then reminded that you have been denied equality for the past couple of decades. Imagine your rage if you were in need of immediate medical attention in your country and the government denied you entry or access to supplies following decades of oppression.
Was that an honest question, or sarcasm, Mathloom? I would think it's pretty obvious what its primary mission is, as well as several other important missions the fleet has great resonsibility for. Primary mission? To protect the flow of oil from from the Arabian Gulf, which is a vital national interest of the United States, its friends and allies, and the rest of the world. That covers a lot of territory. It also operates warplanes supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, intelligence gathering, and the suppression of pirates in the region. It protects the small Gulf states from a large nation hostile to most of them... Iran. That and many other things. The fleet is kept very busy.
I figured as much. I think it has a heck of a lot to do with oil, and as you said the 5th fleet is the TOOL to protect those interests. Which is why I was confused by rocketsjudoka's statement that oil has nothing to do with oil, and that it all has to do with the 5th fleet.
Oil has little to do with directly with Bahrain. Yes the 5th fleet is there to protect the shipping lanes sending oil but that is an indirect situation regarding Bahrain, also considering that other US military assets are spread out through the Persian Gulf. As Deckard noted Bahrain works better as a naval base because it can support operations in Iraq and at the moment there isn't a lot of oil coming out of Iraq.
In any case, it seems more likely that the reason for the US stance is to protect US interests, rather than protect the 5th fleet. The 5th fleet is there to protect US interests. That would be like protecting protection. I'm just being pedantic. I see what you mean.
