EPTLibyan Uprising - Page 122
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. | ||
KwarK
United States43803 Posts
| ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On August 23 2011 08:21 KwarK wrote: Gaddafi had a pretty huge role to play in the janjaweed militia which have caused the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people in a brutal civil war in the Sudan. Humanitarian roles and warfare need not always be opposites. I'm not going to claim they are, WWII being the most prominent example. I'm just saying that we're not there because we primarily want to save lives. Didn't the civil war end years ago? I seem to remember South Sudan becoming a separate country, though both countries still have major issues with poverty, disease, violence, and other miscellaneous concerns. | ||
|
gzealot
Singapore238 Posts
On August 23 2011 08:15 acker wrote: No, just common sense. Though now that you mention it, children are, as a whole, more affected by disease and malnutrition than Tomahawk missiles. I'm not against the war, but I'm not stupid enough to think we're involved out of the goodness in our hearts. you are taking an extremely myopic view on the conflicts of the world. There are numerous conflicts in the world, and to decide to act on one, requires weighing of the options. These much is clear. It is true, that there is a mix of realpolitik and altruism at play here. Children suffering from malaria has been an ongoing event, and other organisations like WHO are better equipped and more relevant to this problem. NATO, at heart is a military organisation, and should solve problems which can be solved by application of force. Troops can hand out medicine, but so can civilians. There is no REAL need to use troops for this case. You have to understand the opportunity cost here. People have been burning Western flags forever in the Middle East. And suddenly, you have a population, ASKING for Western support, to encourage democracy, and the best? You don't even need ground troops! This is anathema to American politicians and public alike. You have a golden opportunity, to introduce democracy, to a probably West-friendly government, that has popular support. (You might argue this case, but I think looking at the footage from TV, comparing Libyan State TV and Libyan Free TV, you can come to your own conclusion). This is basically, a just war, totally in line with your global goals, on the cheap. US spent just a billion in these 6 months. It is going to be very hard to find such a classical villain, with such unpopularity, and a armed ground presence to boot. | ||
|
Saji
Netherlands262 Posts
http://www.voltairenet.org/Washington-tried-to-snatch-1-5 to sum it up 500 000 000 dollars to humanitarian organizations of its choice "to address ongoing humanitarian needs and those that can be anticipated, in line with the call of the United Nations and its foreseeable updates"; 500 000 000 dollars to "companies supplying fuel and vital humanitarian goods"; 500 000 000 dollars to the Temporary Financial Mechanism (TFM) for "salaries and operating expenses of Libyan civil servants, food subsidies, electricity and other humanitarian purchases." From this amount, 100 000 000 dollars will be provisioned to be subsequently allocated for the humanitarian needs of the Libyan people in areas not controlled by the National Transitional Council (NTC) once it will have established "a credible, transparent and effective" mechanism for handing over the funds. and in layman's terms the United States informed the Sanctions Committee of its intention to help itself to $ 1.5 billion, of which one-third would be earmarked for their own humanitarian services (USAID ...), another third would go to their own multinationals (Exxon, Halliburton etc..), and the rest would be given to the TFM, a LIEM office, which happens to be an informal body created by Washington and endorsed by the Contact Group to administer Libya Official document http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/ONU_Note_93_COMM_153_USA_-3.pdf This shows again and again that this support and reason for NATO (USA) helping the rebels is all about money and power and nothing about democracy and freedom. | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
On August 23 2011 08:26 acker wrote: I'm not going to claim they are, WWII being the most prominent example. I'm just saying that we're not there because we primarily want to save lives. Didn't the civil war end years ago? I seem to remember South Sudan becoming a separate country, though both countries still have major issues with poverty, disease, violence, and other miscellaneous concerns. No, South Sudan achieved nominal independence, but the Darfur region in the West still experiences a great deal of turmoil...largely due to China's support of Khartoum, but that's another matter. If "we" aren't there to save lives, why are we there? Is it oil? To open Libyan oilfields to western investors? People said the same jazz about Iraq and it's pretty clear today that the "war for oil" was no such thing (if it was, surely the Americans would have gotten more oil out of it than they do...Asian countries have far more ownership in Iraqi oilfields than the US). There are far cheaper and far more stable methods of acquiring oil than attempting to overthrow an entrenched dictator. On August 23 2011 08:36 Saji wrote: Interesting article about the Libyan money (1.5 billion dollars) that was frozen and how the US Government basically wanted to give it to itself. http://www.voltairenet.org/Washington-tried-to-snatch-1-5 to sum it up 500 000 000 dollars to humanitarian organizations of its choice "to address ongoing humanitarian needs and those that can be anticipated, in line with the call of the United Nations and its foreseeable updates"; 500 000 000 dollars to "companies supplying fuel and vital humanitarian goods"; 500 000 000 dollars to the Temporary Financial Mechanism (TFM) for "salaries and operating expenses of Libyan civil servants, food subsidies, electricity and other humanitarian purchases." From this amount, 100 000 000 dollars will be provisioned to be subsequently allocated for the humanitarian needs of the Libyan people in areas not controlled by the National Transitional Council (NTC) once it will have established "a credible, transparent and effective" mechanism for handing over the funds. and in layman's terms the United States informed the Sanctions Committee of its intention to help itself to $ 1.5 billion, of which one-third would be earmarked for their own humanitarian services (USAID ...), another third would go to their own multinationals (Exxon, Halliburton etc..), and the rest would be given to the TFM, a LIEM office, which happens to be an informal body created by Washington and endorsed by the Contact Group to administer Libya Official document http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/ONU_Note_93_COMM_153_USA_-3.pdf This shows again and again that this support and reason for NATO (USA) helping the rebels is all about money and power and nothing about democracy and freedom. Hush child, try reading the document before you post inflammatory garbage. If you gave it a moment's thought, you'd probably think it strange how much the US government would care about the pocketchange that is 1.5 billion. You'd also wonder why, if profit was the goal, the US was so reluctant and hesitant to engage in the Libya affair. After that, you'd think to yourself...what do the British and French have to gain from the conflict, and then compare those goals with the goals in that pretty document you linked. Think all of that through and try again! | ||
|
gzealot
Singapore238 Posts
On August 23 2011 08:36 Saji wrote: Interesting article about the Libyan money (1.5 billion dollars) that was frozen and how the US Government basically wanted to give it to itself. http://www.voltairenet.org/Washington-tried-to-snatch-1-5 to sum it up 500 000 000 dollars to humanitarian organizations of its choice "to address ongoing humanitarian needs and those that can be anticipated, in line with the call of the United Nations and its foreseeable updates"; 500 000 000 dollars to "companies supplying fuel and vital humanitarian goods"; 500 000 000 dollars to the Temporary Financial Mechanism (TFM) for "salaries and operating expenses of Libyan civil servants, food subsidies, electricity and other humanitarian purchases." From this amount, 100 000 000 dollars will be provisioned to be subsequently allocated for the humanitarian needs of the Libyan people in areas not controlled by the National Transitional Council (NTC) once it will have established "a credible, transparent and effective" mechanism for handing over the funds. and in layman's terms the United States informed the Sanctions Committee of its intention to help itself to $ 1.5 billion, of which one-third would be earmarked for their own humanitarian services (USAID ...), another third would go to their own multinationals (Exxon, Halliburton etc..), and the rest would be given to the TFM, a LIEM office, which happens to be an informal body created by Washington and endorsed by the Contact Group to administer Libya Official document http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/ONU_Note_93_COMM_153_USA_-3.pdf This shows again and again that this support and reason for NATO (USA) helping the rebels is all about money and power and nothing about democracy and freedom. why dont you think of it as simply using libyan to pay for stuff libyan people use? If everyone's crying foul on costs arising from intervention, this is one way to pay for costs, right? | ||
|
Saji
Netherlands262 Posts
On August 23 2011 08:38 Elegy wrote: No, South Sudan achieved nominal independence, but the Darfur region in the West still experiences a great deal of turmoil...largely due to China's support of Khartoum, but that's another matter. If "we" aren't there to save lives, why are we there? Is it oil? To open Libyan oilfields to western investors? People said the same jazz about Iraq and it's pretty clear today that the "war for oil" was no such thing (if it was, surely the Americans would have gotten more oil out of it than they do...Asian countries have far more ownership in Iraqi oilfields than the US). There are far cheaper and far more stable methods of acquiring oil than attempting to overthrow an entrenched dictator. Hush child, try reading the document before you post inflammatory garbage. If you gave it a moment's thought, you'd probably think it strange how much the US government would care about the pocketchange that is 1.5 billion. You'd also wonder why, if profit was the goal, the US was so reluctant and hesitant to engage in the Libya affair. After that, you'd think to yourself...what do the British and French have to gain from the conflict, and then compare those goals with the goals in that pretty document you linked. Think all of that through and try again! You assume as if the USA government works as a cohesive force,,,, which it doesn't it exist of groups of people and people have their different kinds of goals. While 1.5 billion might not be allot for a nation as a whole, it is for the ones benefiting directly. You think that the 1.5 billion will be spread through out the whole government? of course not! If it hadn't been stopped it would just go to a selected few. And your telling me to hush and being all condescending while you cant even connect the dots. How about you think the whole processes thoroughly before replying man. And when you reply you don't need to be a dick when trying to proof your point. | ||
|
Saji
Netherlands262 Posts
On August 23 2011 08:41 gzealot wrote: why dont you think of it as simply using libyan to pay for stuff libyan people use? If everyone's crying foul on costs arising from intervention, this is one way to pay for costs, right? Read the entire article it blatantly says that the money will not go to the Libyan people that's the whole reason of the article. So tell why would i think of it as simply using libyan to pay for stuff Libyan people use while the reality is not soo..... Because tell me What stuff do the Libyan people need to pay that they are using?? Really what stuff? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
![[image loading]](http://blogs.aljazeera.net/sites/default/files/imagecache/BlogsMainImage/saif%201.jpg) | ||
|
GeyzeR
250 Posts
On August 23 2011 09:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Uh... Unless this was prerecorded then it appears Saif has not been captured. Saif al-Islam 'not arrested Also please take a note: "Gaddafi's eldest son, Mohammad, who was also detained by rebels on Sunday night is reported to have escaped." | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On August 23 2011 08:38 Elegy wrote: If "we" aren't there to save lives, why are we there? Is it oil? To open Libyan oilfields to western investors? People said the same jazz about Iraq and it's pretty clear today that the "war for oil" was no such thing (if it was, surely the Americans would have gotten more oil out of it than they do...Asian countries have far more ownership in Iraqi oilfields than the US). I don't know why exactly we're there. I doubt anyone will know for certain why exactly we're there for a long, long time. If history is any indicator, this could be between a decade to a century. If history is an indicator, humanitarian needs will definitely be secondary if at all present, and our interests primary. Iraq's a weird example to bring up, though. Iraq's oil production is relatively low, but it has one of the largest oil reserves on the planet. Largely foreign companies have certainly outpaced largely US companies in buying up existing, completed oil fields. However, future subcontracts for drilling and wells have gone to mostly US companies, not mostly foreign companies. It's not exactly the sort of simple, direct thing that would grab headlines though. | ||
|
Parj
France55 Posts
On August 23 2011 08:38 Elegy wrote: No, South Sudan achieved nominal independence, but the Darfur region in the West still experiences a great deal of turmoil...largely due to China's support of Khartoum, but that's another matter. If "we" aren't there to save lives, why are we there? Is it oil? To open Libyan oilfields to western investors? People said the same jazz about Iraq and it's pretty clear today that the "war for oil" was no such thing (if it was, surely the Americans would have gotten more oil out of it than they do...Asian countries have far more ownership in Iraqi oilfields than the US). There are far cheaper and far more stable methods of acquiring oil than attempting to overthrow an entrenched dictator. Hush child, try reading the document before you post inflammatory garbage. If you gave it a moment's thought, you'd probably think it strange how much the US government would care about the pocketchange that is 1.5 billion. You'd also wonder why, if profit was the goal, the US was so reluctant and hesitant to engage in the Libya affair. After that, you'd think to yourself...what do the British and French have to gain from the conflict, and then compare those goals with the goals in that pretty document you linked. Think all of that through and try again! Sure this is just the top of the iceberg, i suggest you to think about the real deal. 1)Money In 2004, US erased Lybia from the "Rogue States list". In 2006 Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) is create with 40B$. In 2011 the LIA is about 70B$ which climb to 150B$ if you consider foreign invests in 500 companies everywhere in the world. Libya gains 30B$/Year from oil. 2)Gas and Oil. 60B oil and 1500B gas under the Lybian ground, and easy to extract.(No off shore, oil companies on place since 2004).This is HUGE money. 3)Politics. What made Kaddafi with benefits since 2006? He invested via the Libyan Arab African Investment Company in 22 sub-saharian countries in mining, manufacturing, and telecom sectors. For example in August 2010 a satellite for RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communications Organization). Let me tell you that wasn't for EU and US pleasure to lose hundreds Millions $. He invested in 3 financial organisms too. -The African Bank Invest in Tripoli. -The African Monetary Fund (AMF) in Yaoundé. -The African Central Bank in Abuja (Nigeria). The goals of theses organisms was to struggle against the Wolrd Bank and IMF for the financial independancy of 14 ex-french colonies, which still using "Franc CFA". 4)What happend 20 Jan 2011 Wikileaks revealed that Mohamed Layas informed the US ambassador in Tripoli (Gene A.Cretz) that the LIA made a 32B$ deposit in US banks. 28 Feb, five weeks later, US Treasure blocked it for the safe future of Libya. That's the biggest amount ever blocked in US. EU blocked 45B$ in the same period. Conclusion. EU gains oil and gas. US regains some diplomatic value, and a relative sure place in north africa, where they could act for future. I bet you that Mr Cretz will be the "transitional" Gouvernor for free Lybia. | ||
|
GeyzeR
250 Posts
On August 23 2011 10:05 acker wrote: I don't know why exactly we're there. I doubt anyone will know for certain why exactly we're there for a long, long time. Petrodollar warfare?(read the wikipedia article) "In 2000, Iraq converted all its oil transactions under the Oil for Food program to euros.[2] When U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it returned oil sales from the euro to the USD" Largely foreign companies have certainly outpaced largely US companies in buying up existing, completed oil fields. In 2009. What about 2003-2009? | ||
|
GeyzeR
250 Posts
On August 23 2011 10:27 Parj wrote: Sure this is just the top of the iceberg, i suggest you to think about the real deal... Good knowledge, Parj  But what Gaddafi was thinking, doing all that damage to the West, keeping his money in the Western banks at the same time? Libya gained some economical and living standards grow under his rule, that's good, but he had to go long time ago, he is a dinosaur in the contemporary world. He is too straight, too obsessed with his ideas, with near zero negotiation skills. Libya is not a planet in space, there are many, and what is more important, more powerful countries around on the globe. He cannot just start changing the rules without expecting the consequences. I feel like Saif could find a better compromise with the western world.. but now it is too late. | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
On August 23 2011 10:52 GeyzeR wrote: Good knowledge, Parj But what Gaddafi was thinking, doing all that damage to the West, keeping his money in the Western banks at the same time? Libya gained some economical and living standards grow under his rule, that's good, but he had to go long time ago, he is a dinosaur in the contemporary world. He is too straight, too obsessed with his ideas, with near zero negotiation skills. Libya is not a planet in space, there are many, and what is more important, more powerful countries around on the globe. He cannot just start changing the rules without expecting the consequences. I feel like Saif could find a better compromise with the western world.. but now it is too late. Investing money in africa doesn't really do damage to the west. It's not like Gaddafi spent no money in the west either, RASCOM satellites for example were built in europe. Why do you think Switzerland had to apologize to Gaddafi just last year? To protect their financial interests! European leaders visited Libya often to seal new contracts. If anything, states in europe were too lenient with the Gaddafi family. His sons did whatever they wanted in europe, including various crimes, without being prosecuted or with the charges being dropped for nebulous reasons. If people in Tunisia and Egypt wouldn't have revolted, the corrupt and self-absorbed Gaddafi family would probably have ruled Libya for many more years to come, just another eccentric investor to accomodate for the west. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On August 23 2011 08:36 Saji wrote: Interesting article about the Libyan money (1.5 billion dollars) that was frozen and how the US Government basically wanted to give it to itself. http://www.voltairenet.org/Washington-tried-to-snatch-1-5 to sum it up 500 000 000 dollars to humanitarian organizations of its choice "to address ongoing humanitarian needs and those that can be anticipated, in line with the call of the United Nations and its foreseeable updates"; 500 000 000 dollars to "companies supplying fuel and vital humanitarian goods"; 500 000 000 dollars to the Temporary Financial Mechanism (TFM) for "salaries and operating expenses of Libyan civil servants, food subsidies, electricity and other humanitarian purchases." From this amount, 100 000 000 dollars will be provisioned to be subsequently allocated for the humanitarian needs of the Libyan people in areas not controlled by the National Transitional Council (NTC) once it will have established "a credible, transparent and effective" mechanism for handing over the funds. and in layman's terms the United States informed the Sanctions Committee of its intention to help itself to $ 1.5 billion, of which one-third would be earmarked for their own humanitarian services (USAID ...), another third would go to their own multinationals (Exxon, Halliburton etc..), and the rest would be given to the TFM, a LIEM office, which happens to be an informal body created by Washington and endorsed by the Contact Group to administer Libya Official document http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/ONU_Note_93_COMM_153_USA_-3.pdf This shows again and again that this support and reason for NATO (USA) helping the rebels is all about money and power and nothing about democracy and freedom. Aah fuck it, you saw right through the plan. They defeated Gaddaffi for the grand spoils of war totalling 1.5 billion dollars. Such a vast booty simply could not be passed up by the NATO. What ever will we spend this new found fortune on? Half a road? | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10870 Posts
Ahm: Look at a Map, see how close it is to Europe? Now... What do you think will happen if you have a long drawn out "slaughter" of rebells?... People will flee... And where do you think they will end up? The US would probably also be more than happy to aid a rebellion in a country (lead by a madman you couldn't trust) that is about to slaughter an entire city, has oil, has rebel forces actually ask/beg you to intervene AND is right on your doorstep... Yes, the US itself had not much business in Lybia... But well, Nato is Nato, you should not be able to cherry pick all the time if you want to be part of it (and lead it like the US does). There are other reasons but this one is pretty big. Add into this, that it still is a once in a lifetime change for true "change" in the arabian world. Not intervening/helping would be clinging to the status quo... Which is not desireable by the west because it really can't get much worse, at least not for "the West" (for the people living there it actually can.. See Afghanistan, but I doubt that will happen). If this works out "the West" will look good, crazy good to many people in that region of the world... Alone the chance for this to happen could be worth the investment (if you compare it to other "interventions" at least)... | ||
|
Nesto
Switzerland1318 Posts
On August 23 2011 11:28 Maenander wrote: Investing money in africa doesn't really do damage to the west. It's not like Gaddafi spent no money in the west either, RASCOM satellites for example were built in europe. Why do you think Switzerland had to apologize to Gaddafi just last year? To protect their financial interests! European leaders visited Libya often to seal new contracts. If anything, states in europe were too lenient with the Gaddafi family. His sons did whatever they wanted in europe, including various crimes, without being prosecuted or with the charges being dropped for nebulous reasons. If people in Tunisia and Egypt wouldn't have revolted, the corrupt and self-absorbed Gaddafi family would probably have ruled Libya for many more years to come, just another eccentric investor to accomodate for the west. Pretty sure the apology had a lot to do with freeing 2 Swiss guys, who had been held hostage for nearly 2 years, because Gaddafi's son had to spend a day on a police post, after beating up his domestic staff in a Geneva hotel. I doubt that any Swiss company was still foolish enough to have financial interests in Lybia after that. But I agree with you about the European states, who did bend over to Gaddafi. Europe didn't give a shit about the whole hostage situation, until Switzerland used Schengen to deny the Gaddafi family the option to travel to Europe. After that, they finally intervened, by blaming Switzerland for it's harsh actions (-> Frattini / Berlusconi), or by apologizing to Gaddafi for the actions of the Non-EU-Schengen country Switzerland (-> Spain). | ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
On August 23 2011 15:49 zalz wrote: Aah fuck it, you saw right through the plan. They defeated Gaddaffi for the grand spoils of war totalling 1.5 billion dollars. Such a vast booty simply could not be passed up by the NATO. What ever will we spend this new found fortune on? Half a road? On August 23 2011 10:27 Parj wrote: + Show Spoiler + On August 23 2011 08:38 Elegy wrote: No, South Sudan achieved nominal independence, but the Darfur region in the West still experiences a great deal of turmoil...largely due to China's support of Khartoum, but that's another matter. If "we" aren't there to save lives, why are we there? Is it oil? To open Libyan oilfields to western investors? People said the same jazz about Iraq and it's pretty clear today that the "war for oil" was no such thing (if it was, surely the Americans would have gotten more oil out of it than they do...Asian countries have far more ownership in Iraqi oilfields than the US). There are far cheaper and far more stable methods of acquiring oil than attempting to overthrow an entrenched dictator. Hush child, try reading the document before you post inflammatory garbage. If you gave it a moment's thought, you'd probably think it strange how much the US government would care about the pocketchange that is 1.5 billion. You'd also wonder why, if profit was the goal, the US was so reluctant and hesitant to engage in the Libya affair. After that, you'd think to yourself...what do the British and French have to gain from the conflict, and then compare those goals with the goals in that pretty document you linked. Think all of that through and try again! Sure this is just the top of the iceberg, i suggest you to think about the real deal. 1)Money In 2004, US erased Lybia from the "Rogue States list". In 2006 Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) is create with 40B$. In 2011 the LIA is about 70B$ which climb to 150B$ if you consider foreign invests in 500 companies everywhere in the world. Libya gains 30B$/Year from oil. 2)Gas and Oil. 60B oil and 1500B gas under the Lybian ground, and easy to extract.(No off shore, oil companies on place since 2004).This is HUGE money. 3)Politics. What made Kaddafi with benefits since 2006? He invested via the Libyan Arab African Investment Company in 22 sub-saharian countries in mining, manufacturing, and telecom sectors. For example in August 2010 a satellite for RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communications Organization). Let me tell you that wasn't for EU and US pleasure to lose hundreds Millions $. He invested in 3 financial organisms too. -The African Bank Invest in Tripoli. -The African Monetary Fund (AMF) in Yaoundé. -The African Central Bank in Abuja (Nigeria). The goals of theses organisms was to struggle against the Wolrd Bank and IMF for the financial independancy of 14 ex-french colonies, which still using "Franc CFA". 4)What happend 20 Jan 2011 Wikileaks revealed that Mohamed Layas informed the US ambassador in Tripoli (Gene A.Cretz) that the LIA made a 32B$ deposit in US banks. 28 Feb, five weeks later, US Treasure blocked it for the safe future of Libya. That's the biggest amount ever blocked in US. EU blocked 45B$ in the same period. Conclusion. EU gains oil and gas. US regains some diplomatic value, and a relative sure place in north africa, where they could act for future. I bet you that Mr Cretz will be the "transitional" Gouvernor for free Lybia. That 1.5B seems insignificant next to the 1500B gas that could be had... interesting... | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6271 Posts
Sure there might be more reasons but that is all speculation especially his oil bullshit again which we've heard a million times well surprise surprise if they really cared much about oil they would've let gadaffi win since then the oil prices would have been lower for months. You guys don't realise how bad a high oil price is for the economy... Besides gadaffi lost his legitimacy as leader the moment he shot on his own people. | ||
| ||
