On August 27 2011 01:02 Velr wrote: And by doing that losing all it's credibility as a leading nato nation.
Yeah, that would have been smart.
Britain and France were the only ones pushing for intervention, and it is highly doubtable they would have gone through with it without american support. But whatever, we are long past that point.
Some sort of backdoor dealing must have taken place for that Libya oil or a % of it. Or drilling rights to it.
Don't think any NATO country was going to do this for free.
USA (the government not the people) has strategic interested in putting up bases in Libya, this will allow them to limit the amount of natural resources that China and Russia can extract from Africa. So while oil might not be the direct concern or interested of USA itself the flow of oil and resources is.
And when you talk about Britain and France one should understand that the governments are directed by the oligarch. It is not in the interested of Britain and France to occupy Libya but it is for Oil companies.
I like you to remind the letter BP wrote to Blair instructing him how to act towards Gadaffi to get a lucrative contract.
So it is not the prime misters or parties that rule the army and directives of Britain nor France but the Industries. This fact should always be in might if we are talking about nations.
atually, french Fremdenlegion (foreign legion) and brithish sas help the rebels to find Ghadafi, written in the austrian papers today, and i m sure everyone can get the quote in worldly papers or there.
So special forces hunt the evil dictator down, because of what?
Sure, for the upcoming democracy and better standard of living for those people there next to the oil.
One constructive thing to add, its not only about oil and pipelines, imo a good part of this is the fresh water reserves (by far the largest in the region), its geopolitics babe!
Does noone engage in critical thinking anymore? Do we just repeat what we overhear on T.V. while we munch on cheerios?
I don't know, but I bet men like Moammar Qaddafi find people like you to be useful.
I don't know about critical thinking, but I'll dismiss your evaluation by implying that your position is helpful to inhuman evil with italics
I loled.
On August 26 2011 14:03 DeepElemBlues wrote: Anyway, the NTC is a reasonable umbrella organization through which to institute a popular government that has a chance of ruling the country fairly and with stability.
I've basically stated what we know for sure, the NTC is a tiny minority of the population as a whole with no democratic underpinnings or evidence of any kind of real popular support. They may have a great deal of popular support, they may be the best thing to ever happen to Libya, but we don't know that.
You have somehow magically attributed to them the status of "umbrella organization", presumably meaning that they represent a plurality of views. You also assume that supporting them gives reasonable chance of a "fair and stable" outcome.
My position is based on simple observation with a good nod to how little I know. Yours makes two key assumptions throws in a couple of vaguely nice sounding adjectives and provides no evidence for any of it.
On August 26 2011 14:03 DeepElemBlues wrote: I don't think it's reasonable to say things like this:
The "National Transitional Council" represents a faction of the people doing the fighting which is a small fraction of the libyan people. They are a faction of a fraction. The west is pretty much annointing them for power by promising them billions of dollars in frozen assets and in return the NTC is promising favorable contracts to the multinationals associated with countries that spent the cash bombing the gaddafi regime. Don't assume that "the council" are in any way representatives of the Lybian people.
As it simply assumes that this non-Western organization that has allied with Western governments is a craven puppet, without any evidence for that.
You are misrepresenting what I have said, what I actually did say is is not "the NTC is a craven western puppet". What I said was:
On August 26 2011 19:19 GeyzeR wrote: Young Libyan in London by terms of this topic he is a "conspiracy theorist", but anyways I recommend to listen to him I guess he know about Libya more than any of us here
What is up with this notion that people have that because you have a certain skin colour or because you are born in a certain pile of dirt you come into this world with some inherent deep understanding of that part of the world.
This guy is perhaps even more clueless given to how close he is to the situation. One can hardly be able to think objectively when his uncle is getting killed by the rebels in fighting.
On the whole I agree with this. Although you must admit, purely from the point of view of information sources, that the lad will have access to first hand accounts which we don't have.
On August 26 2011 19:57 zalz wrote: Would he just admit to the truth that his uncle was fighting to secure his own intrests and fighting against the will of the Libyan people to maintain the power of a dictator? No ofcourse not. Both the uncle would have lied to himself to make him sound like the hero and the nephew will lie to himself to believe that his uncle was fighting the good cause.
People like to make themselves out to be the good guys regardless of what side they are on. Nobody paints a picture of themselves as the bad guys despite these Gaddaffi loyalists being just that.
You contradict yourself here. The young libyan makes claims about "the truth" with anecdotal evidence, you refute them. You then go on to make your own claims about "the truth" with no evidence whatsoever. Your interest is in protecting an ideology which you appear to have bought wholesale that Gaddafi represents "bad" that rebel forces + nato represent "good" and the will of the libyan people. As I say you present no evidence for this point of view, but you could be forgiven, I don't think any evidence actually exists for this point of view.
There is little doubt that Gaddafi was a complete shit. But while he is clearly a brutal dictator, he managed to create a society in which people were significantly better off than in neighboring Egypt. Egypt, whose military is comprably brutal, corrupt and undemocratic. Egypt which Nato, the U.S. and Europe was more than happy to deal with. Egypt which didn't get the crap bombed out of it when it's people rebelled. Little bit of a different picture than baddies and goodies no?
I'd really like to make this as clear as possible. I have no strong opinions on the awesomeness or the lack thereof of the NTC. I am skeptical of their stated goals, I am skeptical of the stated goals of the foreign powers who support them, I am skeptical that there is no alternative, I am skeptical that the end result will be of benefit to the Libyan people. I then paint a rough picture of the situation using my small knowledge of the last 30-40 years of intervention by the west which is clearly marked by a disreguard for democracy, a double standard on dictators and goals that include the securing of resources for profit and strategic military aims.
posting.... oh no wait! This just in....
On August 27 2011 04:51 zalz wrote: Still with that oil nonesense...
How many drops of oil has the US taken from Iraq? Because currently the meter stands at 0. Or is that also an illuminati ruse?
The ammount of dictator supporters in this threat is getting ridiculous. I suppose it's easier to support a dictator when it's not your people he's oppressing. Kind of sickening that people have turned the suffering of the Libyan people into a joke just to feed their anti-Americanism and their conspiracy theories.
Moralising to stifle debate, conflating views that conflict with yours with conspiracy theories and being ignorant enough to assume that there has to be a pipe line from Iraq to the U.S. in order for the U.S. interests to be served by the invasion of Iraq.
On August 27 2011 04:51 zalz wrote: Still with that oil nonesense...
How many drops of oil has the US taken from Iraq? Because currently the meter stands at 0. Or is that also an illuminati ruse?
The ammount of dictator supporters in this threat is getting ridiculous. I suppose it's easier to support a dictator when it's not your people he's oppressing. Kind of sickening that people have turned the suffering of the Libyan people into a joke just to feed their anti-Americanism and their conspiracy theories.
the hard thing here is, some ppl here still think its a rising from the grassroots to defeat their brutal tyrannical dictator.
I agree that gadhafi is not the best choice, but the to protect the people while u bombing seems just outright wrong, in my humble opinion most of the people get away of ghadafi, not because of his imminent thread but just because if they don t they receive a nice bombing from "friends"
fact is this guy ruled for like 40 years, and now hes an enemy while the folk suffers, didn t her them suffer in 2005 before the "rebellion"
he didn t bow to the companies, heads off and now democracy for all
On August 27 2011 01:02 Velr wrote: And by doing that losing all it's credibility as a leading nato nation.
Yeah, that would have been smart.
Britain and France were the only ones pushing for intervention, and it is highly doubtable they would have gone through with it without american support. But whatever, we are long past that point.
Some sort of backdoor dealing must have taken place for that Libya oil or a % of it. Or drilling rights to it.
Don't think any NATO country was going to do this for free.
USA (the government not the people) has strategic interested in putting up bases in Libya, this will allow them to limit the amount of natural resources that China and Russia can extract from Africa. So while oil might not be the direct concern or interested of USA itself the flow of oil and resources is.
And when you talk about Britain and France one should understand that the governments are directed by the oligarch. It is not in the interested of Britain and France to occupy Libya but it is for Oil companies.
I like you to remind the letter BP wrote to Blair instructing him how to act towards Gadaffi to get a lucrative contract.
So it is not the prime misters or parties that rule the army and directives of Britain nor France but the Industries. This fact should always be in might if we are talking about nations.
atually, french Fremdenlegion (foreign legion) and brithish sas help the rebels to find Ghadafi, written in the austrian papers today, and i m sure everyone can get the quote in worldly papers or there.
So special forces hunt the evil dictator down, because of what?
Sure, for the upcoming democracy and better standard of living for those people there next to the oil.
One constructive thing to add, its not only about oil and pipelines, imo a good part of this is the fresh water reserves (by far the largest in the region), its geopolitics babe!
Yeah i find it funny how hardly anyone reports about the dmg done to the Great Man Made River project.
“The Colonel’s GMMR project was discounted when first unveiled as an uneconomic flight of fancy and a wasteful exploitation of un-renewable freshwater reserves,” Middle East-based journalist Iason Athanasiadis told IPS. “But subsequently it was hailed as a masterful work of engineering, tapping into underground aquifers so vast that they could keep the 2007 rate of dispersal going for the next 1,000 years.”
“The GMMR provides 70 percent of the population with water for drinking and irrigation, pumping it from Libya’s vast underground aquifers like the NSAS in the south to populated coastal areas 4,000 kilometres to the north,” Ivan Ivekovic, professor of political science at the American University of Cairo told IPS.
On 22 July NATO warplanes attacked the pipe making plant at Brega killing six of the facility’s security guards. According to AP, Abdel-Hakim el-Shwehdy, head of the company running the project, said: “Major parts of the plant have been damaged. There could be major setback for the future projects.”
Until oil is sold for money US can "produce" they do not need it directly.
Today an internet connection connection has appeared in Tripoly. As a result a video from a Libyan soldier. Soldierw together with tripolitanians fighting invaders in Tripoly.
Unlike staged Al Jazeera videos, this one is messy, people are dirty, carrying ammo on body. The message that NTC has moved already to Tripoli is a joke, there are still fights. The rumors are that NTC has lost control over islamistic east and moved to Misrata. Remember that murder of general Younis? They western oriented NTC failed to make peace with the locals.
Just imagine how much pressure got these soldiers during these months... With total enemy air domination it is next to impossible to fight in the contemporary war.
Oh this is a great article i found on human right watch
The myth of black mercenaries The viagra myth Nato protecting civilians
Human Rights Investigations. Libyan rebel ethnic cleansing and lynching of black people + Show Spoiler +
Further specific evidence has emerged that there is a strong racist element within the rebel forces, including at command level, and it is the stated intention of these forces to ethnically cleanse areas they capture of their dark-skinned inhabitants.
Racism amongst the rebels including at command level
In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, journalist Sam Dagher pointed out the obvious fact that the Libyan war is aggravating ethnic tensions in that country. The article talks about the fate of Tawergha, a small town 25 miles to the south of Misrata, inhabited mostly by black Libyans, a legacy of its 19th-century origins as a transit town in the slave trade:
Ibrahim al-Halbous, a rebel commander leading the fight near Tawergha, says all remaining residents should leave once if his fighters capture the town. “They should pack up,” Mr. Halbous said. “Tawergha no longer exists, only Misrata.”
Other rebel leaders are reported as:
“calling for drastic measures like banning Tawergha natives from ever working, living or sending their children to schools in Misrata.”
In addition, according to the article, as a result of the battle for Misrata:
nearly four-fifths of residents of Misrata’s Ghoushi neighborhood were Tawergha natives. Now they are gone or in hiding, fearing revenge attacks by Misratans, amid reports of bounties for their capture.
Amid allegations of black mercenaries and stories of mass rape by the inhabitants of Tawergha, Sam Dagher reports on further evidence of the racism amongst the rebel forces:
Some of the hatred of Tawergha has racist overtones that were mostly latent before the current conflict. On the road between Misrata and Tawergha, rebel slogans like “the brigade for purging slaves, black skin” have supplanted pro-Gadhafi scrawl.
The racial tensions have been fueled by the regime’s alleged use of African mercenaries to violently suppress demonstrators at the start of the Libyan uprising in February, and the sense that the south of the country, which is predominantly black, mainly backs Col. Gadhafi.
This information has already been publicised, in the WSJ and also in the Black Star News. Bryan Chan of the Los Angeles Times reports visiting a prison in Benghazi, where terrified black men were paraded for the cameras (with Human Rights Watch silently taking notes). One man bravely protested he was just a guest worker and the guards presented a Gambian passport as proof he was a Gaddafi operative. Chan’s Libyan interpreter asked:
“So what do you think? Should we just go ahead and kill them?”
There is a lot of horrific video footage clearly showing public lynchings in Benghazi (link to graphic description of some of the footage). including at the rebel HQ, beheadings of blindfolded prisoners and interrogation of prisoners, including in hospitals.
The myth of black mercenaries leads to lynchings
Other evidence of the massacres of black people, which include the lynchings and murder of black soldiers of the Libyan army, guest workers from other African countries and dark-skinned Libyan civilians include a report from the BBC on 25 February which cited a Turkish construction worker as saying:
“We had 70-80 people from Chad working for our company. They were cut dead with pruning shears and axes, attackers saying: ‘You are providing troops for Gaddafi.’ The Sudanese were also massacred. We saw it for ourselves.”
On 27th February Nick Meo of The Telegraph reported from Al-Bayda that he had been shown mobile phone footage of a ‘captured mercenary‘ (presumably he means black person with a uniform) lynched from a street lamp as well as a ‘black African hanging on a meat hook.’
Amnesty International crisis researcher, Donatella Rovera spent the period from 27 February to 29th May in Misrata, Benghasi, Ajabiya and Ras Lanouf. Yesterday she was interviewed by Austria’s ‘The Standard’ and had this to say on the subject:
“We examined this issue in depth and found no evidence. The rebels spread these rumours everywhere, which had terrible consequences for African guest workers: there was a systematic hunt for migrants, some were lynched and many arrested. Since then, even the rebels have admitted there were no mercenaries, almost all have been released and have returned to their countries of origin, as the investigations into them revealed nothing.”
Who spread the myth and why?
So what accounts for the widespread popularity of this myth? It is, to be frank, an example of highly successful propaganda, appealing to the basest of racial stereotypes. The myth was highly important in gaining consent for the operation in Libya, in order to cover up and justify the massacres of black people taking place.
In account after account, the mercenary myth is used to justify the imprisoning and killing of black people and this process continues today. Given the background of racial tension in Libya, including the October 2000 race riots which led to the killings of 200 people with 1000s forced to flee, the consequences of the spreading of this propaganda were entirely predictable and constitute incitement to commit atrocities.
The myth of black mercenaries was spread by certain political leaders including members of the National Transitional Council in Benghazi, British Defence Minister Liam Fox and NATO spokesperson Oana Longescu .
According to Amnesty, allegations of “African mercenaries” have led to the lynchings
The viagra myth
On the viagra myth beloved of the ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo, Donatella Rovera had this to say:
“No one really took that seriously did they? On the 21 March, after the first air strikes on Gadaffi’s troops outside Benghazi, a young man who worked in the media centre presented us with many boxes of the potency drug. He claimed to have found them in the destroyed tanks. The vehicles had been completely burnt out, but the packaging looked brand new. I can not believe that anyone took him seriously.”
NATO enabling human rights abuses
So is NATO actually “protecting civilians” – or is it rather supporting rebels, some of whom who intend to harm dark-skinned Libyans and ethnically cleanse areas over which they take control? The information contained in this post, is widely known and has been reported in the Independent and other newspapers, so NATO can not claim ignorance of the facts.
As this is being written, the”brigade for purging slaves and black skin,” is advancing on Tawurgha, supported by NATO strikes from the air and on the ground by Special Forces. A rebel commander has declared the intention is to wipe the town off the map and we have already seen the lynchings of black people and the driving out of black people from Ghoushi.
By continuing to escalate the conflict in Libya, allowing the arming and supporting the rebel side, providing bombing support to enable them to advance and refusing to implement a cease-fire as demanded by the United Nations and African Union, NATO is enabling serious abuses of human rights and NATO officials will certainly be held to account.
On August 27 2011 06:39 Saji wrote: Oh this is a great article i found on human right watch
The myth of black mercenaries The viagra myth Nato protecting civilians
Human Rights Investigations. Libyan rebel ethnic cleansing and lynching of black people + Show Spoiler +
Further specific evidence has emerged that there is a strong racist element within the rebel forces, including at command level, and it is the stated intention of these forces to ethnically cleanse areas they capture of their dark-skinned inhabitants.
Racism amongst the rebels including at command level
In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, journalist Sam Dagher pointed out the obvious fact that the Libyan war is aggravating ethnic tensions in that country. The article talks about the fate of Tawergha, a small town 25 miles to the south of Misrata, inhabited mostly by black Libyans, a legacy of its 19th-century origins as a transit town in the slave trade:
Ibrahim al-Halbous, a rebel commander leading the fight near Tawergha, says all remaining residents should leave once if his fighters capture the town. “They should pack up,” Mr. Halbous said. “Tawergha no longer exists, only Misrata.”
Other rebel leaders are reported as:
“calling for drastic measures like banning Tawergha natives from ever working, living or sending their children to schools in Misrata.”
In addition, according to the article, as a result of the battle for Misrata:
nearly four-fifths of residents of Misrata’s Ghoushi neighborhood were Tawergha natives. Now they are gone or in hiding, fearing revenge attacks by Misratans, amid reports of bounties for their capture.
Amid allegations of black mercenaries and stories of mass rape by the inhabitants of Tawergha, Sam Dagher reports on further evidence of the racism amongst the rebel forces:
Some of the hatred of Tawergha has racist overtones that were mostly latent before the current conflict. On the road between Misrata and Tawergha, rebel slogans like “the brigade for purging slaves, black skin” have supplanted pro-Gadhafi scrawl.
The racial tensions have been fueled by the regime’s alleged use of African mercenaries to violently suppress demonstrators at the start of the Libyan uprising in February, and the sense that the south of the country, which is predominantly black, mainly backs Col. Gadhafi.
This information has already been publicised, in the WSJ and also in the Black Star News. Bryan Chan of the Los Angeles Times reports visiting a prison in Benghazi, where terrified black men were paraded for the cameras (with Human Rights Watch silently taking notes). One man bravely protested he was just a guest worker and the guards presented a Gambian passport as proof he was a Gaddafi operative. Chan’s Libyan interpreter asked:
“So what do you think? Should we just go ahead and kill them?”
There is a lot of horrific video footage clearly showing public lynchings in Benghazi (link to graphic description of some of the footage). including at the rebel HQ, beheadings of blindfolded prisoners and interrogation of prisoners, including in hospitals.
The myth of black mercenaries leads to lynchings
Other evidence of the massacres of black people, which include the lynchings and murder of black soldiers of the Libyan army, guest workers from other African countries and dark-skinned Libyan civilians include a report from the BBC on 25 February which cited a Turkish construction worker as saying:
“We had 70-80 people from Chad working for our company. They were cut dead with pruning shears and axes, attackers saying: ‘You are providing troops for Gaddafi.’ The Sudanese were also massacred. We saw it for ourselves.”
On 27th February Nick Meo of The Telegraph reported from Al-Bayda that he had been shown mobile phone footage of a ‘captured mercenary‘ (presumably he means black person with a uniform) lynched from a street lamp as well as a ‘black African hanging on a meat hook.’
Amnesty International crisis researcher, Donatella Rovera spent the period from 27 February to 29th May in Misrata, Benghasi, Ajabiya and Ras Lanouf. Yesterday she was interviewed by Austria’s ‘The Standard’ and had this to say on the subject:
“We examined this issue in depth and found no evidence. The rebels spread these rumours everywhere, which had terrible consequences for African guest workers: there was a systematic hunt for migrants, some were lynched and many arrested. Since then, even the rebels have admitted there were no mercenaries, almost all have been released and have returned to their countries of origin, as the investigations into them revealed nothing.”
Who spread the myth and why?
So what accounts for the widespread popularity of this myth? It is, to be frank, an example of highly successful propaganda, appealing to the basest of racial stereotypes. The myth was highly important in gaining consent for the operation in Libya, in order to cover up and justify the massacres of black people taking place.
In account after account, the mercenary myth is used to justify the imprisoning and killing of black people and this process continues today. Given the background of racial tension in Libya, including the October 2000 race riots which led to the killings of 200 people with 1000s forced to flee, the consequences of the spreading of this propaganda were entirely predictable and constitute incitement to commit atrocities.
The myth of black mercenaries was spread by certain political leaders including members of the National Transitional Council in Benghazi, British Defence Minister Liam Fox and NATO spokesperson Oana Longescu .
According to Amnesty, allegations of “African mercenaries” have led to the lynchings
The viagra myth
On the viagra myth beloved of the ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo, Donatella Rovera had this to say:
“No one really took that seriously did they? On the 21 March, after the first air strikes on Gadaffi’s troops outside Benghazi, a young man who worked in the media centre presented us with many boxes of the potency drug. He claimed to have found them in the destroyed tanks. The vehicles had been completely burnt out, but the packaging looked brand new. I can not believe that anyone took him seriously.”
NATO enabling human rights abuses
So is NATO actually “protecting civilians” – or is it rather supporting rebels, some of whom who intend to harm dark-skinned Libyans and ethnically cleanse areas over which they take control? The information contained in this post, is widely known and has been reported in the Independent and other newspapers, so NATO can not claim ignorance of the facts.
As this is being written, the”brigade for purging slaves and black skin,” is advancing on Tawurgha, supported by NATO strikes from the air and on the ground by Special Forces. A rebel commander has declared the intention is to wipe the town off the map and we have already seen the lynchings of black people and the driving out of black people from Ghoushi.
By continuing to escalate the conflict in Libya, allowing the arming and supporting the rebel side, providing bombing support to enable them to advance and refusing to implement a cease-fire as demanded by the United Nations and African Union, NATO is enabling serious abuses of human rights and NATO officials will certainly be held to account.
According to the BBC (who have avoided reporting that the RAF as the perpetrator): Almost 48 hours after the first strike hit the cluster of buildings in the countryside to the south of Zlitan, Nato said it had completed its assessment of what happened. It confirmed it had hit the area, targeting four buildings and nine vehicles at the site between 23.33 on Monday and 02.34 on Tuesday.
On August 27 2011 04:51 zalz wrote: Still with that oil nonesense...
How many drops of oil has the US taken from Iraq? Because currently the meter stands at 0. Or is that also an illuminati ruse?
The ammount of dictator supporters in this threat is getting ridiculous. I suppose it's easier to support a dictator when it's not your people he's oppressing. Kind of sickening that people have turned the suffering of the Libyan people into a joke just to feed their anti-Americanism and their conspiracy theories.
Everything Russian Today prints or airs is a joke, yes, welcome to the real world. Seriously how the hell can you trust RT. It's not like they make minor mistakes or slightly alter the delivery of a story like Fox News does.
RT printed the article that Tripoli was perfectly fine and the gunshots were celebrating a Gaddaffi victory. Ooh lolwut, rebels in Tripoli? Minor detail.
RT is about as reliable as North-Korean news. Maybe less because atleast NK is pretty straightforward in their bullshitting. Then again, there might be a few people here that think Kim-Jong-Il is the world's best golfer for hitting 11 hole-in-one's on his first round of golf.
Moralising to stifle debate, conflating views that conflict with yours with conspiracy theories and being ignorant enough to assume that there has to be a pipe line from Iraq to the U.S. in order for the U.S. interests to be served by the invasion of Iraq.
That's not sickening, it's just sad.
The invasion of Iraq served the US intrests, well that is intresting.
First up i will forgive you for suddenly changing the phrase "oil" into "intrests". We both know that the oil story is complete bullshit, wich was exactly what i was replying to, but im still glad you decided to suddenly change that to intrest for no reason.
So what did the US get out of invading Iraq? What grand advantage was had?
1) No oil. They didn't get lucrative oil deals, they didn't take any of the oil for themselves, their companies didn't overtake the oil. If anything the oil production stopped because of the war wich only harmed the US because Saddam was more then happy to sell his oil.
2) Saddam was a friend of the US but perhaps more important then that, he was an enemy to Iran. The entire US middle-eastern policy is currently build around countering Iran. Could you perhaps enlighten me how that goal was served by making Iraq a democracy wich is now leaning more towards Iran then it would ever have under Saddam?
The invasion of Iraq was a tactical failure of the grandest kind. It only served to weaken the US position in that region of the world.
People keep suggesting that it's oil or that it's some other advantage. The people in the middle-east have been anti-western for centuries now. Before the invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan they hated the west and after they hated the west. Creating democracies only harms the US intrest because democracies in that part of the world are 9/10 times anti-western because that's what the population is like.
There is no political advantage or an oil advantage. The US got no oil out of Iraq and it's position in Iraq has only weakend.
Tactically Iraq was a mistake but atleast the country has a democracy now and can decide it's own fate, whatever that ends up being. By the end of the year the last of the US troops will be gone from Iraq.
Please point out in wich way the Iraq invasion proved to be good for America?
On August 27 2011 04:51 zalz wrote: Still with that oil nonesense...
How many drops of oil has the US taken from Iraq? Because currently the meter stands at 0. Or is that also an illuminati ruse?
The ammount of dictator supporters in this threat is getting ridiculous. I suppose it's easier to support a dictator when it's not your people he's oppressing. Kind of sickening that people have turned the suffering of the Libyan people into a joke just to feed their anti-Americanism and their conspiracy theories.
What anti-Americanism?
If I could have it my way, I would have cut a deal with the rebels for a % of their oil or drilling rights or what name you to get rid of Gaddafi. It seems they already cut that deal. Gotta profit off all that military expense.
Who controls the oil fields in Iraq?
Who put in place the Iraqi oil ministry?
Give me a break. America would be retarded NOT to make money off that Iraqi oil.
America doesn't need to drill the oil or sell it, it just needs to control the bank accounts and where that oil money goes. You think they will let the new Iraqi oil minister (the one they put in power) decide where to put it?
Just do a lil research on the Iraqi oil money and you'll see it isn't going where it is supposed to go.
On August 27 2011 04:51 zalz wrote: Still with that oil nonesense...
How many drops of oil has the US taken from Iraq? Because currently the meter stands at 0. Or is that also an illuminati ruse?
The ammount of dictator supporters in this threat is getting ridiculous. I suppose it's easier to support a dictator when it's not your people he's oppressing. Kind of sickening that people have turned the suffering of the Libyan people into a joke just to feed their anti-Americanism and their conspiracy theories.
The invasion of Iraq was a tactical failure of the grandest kind. It only served to weaken the US position in that region of the world.
People keep suggesting that it's oil or that it's some other advantage. The people in the middle-east have been anti-western for centuries now. Before the invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan they hated the west and after they hated the west. Creating democracies only harms the US intrest because democracies in that part of the world are 9/10 times anti-western because that's what the population is like.
There is no political advantage or an oil advantage. The US got no oil out of Iraq and it's position in Iraq has only weakend.
Tactically Iraq was a mistake but atleast the country has a democracy now and can decide it's own fate, whatever that ends up being. By the end of the year the last of the US troops will be gone from Iraq.
Please point out in wich way the Iraq invasion proved to be good for America?
I shouldnt do this but i will...
If you say/mean by America its population, then no you are right. But as this is not the case when talking about America (the word) in the context of war that that word america means the "Military Industrial Complex" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex)
When you talk about America in the context "Military Industrial Complex" it does make sense to be in Iraq, for the following reason, conflict. For the "Military Industrial Complex" conflict means Profit. And what does profit means in the current western world? Everything
You blame others of think thinking things through but you are as blind as you claim others to be. Please don't pretend like you actually know what is happening.
alright guys let's just quit shitting on this thread and start reporting if you got nothing to report don't post this thread is horrible enough already.
On August 27 2011 07:11 RvB wrote: alright guys let's just quit shitting on this thread and start reporting if you got nothing to report don't post this thread is horrible enough already.
Your right
Ban seeks urgent deployment of UN mission to help Libya rebuild 26 August 2011
On August 27 2011 04:51 zalz wrote: Still with that oil nonesense...
How many drops of oil has the US taken from Iraq? Because currently the meter stands at 0. Or is that also an illuminati ruse?
The ammount of dictator supporters in this threat is getting ridiculous. I suppose it's easier to support a dictator when it's not your people he's oppressing. Kind of sickening that people have turned the suffering of the Libyan people into a joke just to feed their anti-Americanism and their conspiracy theories.
What anti-Americanism?
If I could have it my way, I would have cut a deal with the rebels for a % of their oil or drilling rights or what name you to get rid of Gaddafi. It seems they already cut that deal. Gotta profit off all that military expense.
Who controls the oil fields in Iraq?
Who put in place the Iraqi oil ministry?
Give me a break. America would be retarded NOT to make money off that Iraqi oil.
Who runs the Iraqi oil ministry? It get's filled by the party's that get elected by the Iraqi people. You can't just make stuff up and make it fact because you think it sounds reasonable.
If you have evidence that the game is rigged in the Iraqi oil ministry then by all means give me some of that evidence. If you don't have evidence then keep those stories to yourself and stop pretending like it's fact. You need proof for something to be considered. You can't just go "ooh well this sounds reasonable, ergo it's gotta be true".
Even if the game is rigged then that would be the worst idea in history. Remove dictator that sells oil to replace with a democracy that is hard to predict wich is at best going to sell us the same oil. Think it through, don't just scream "oil lol".
I shouldnt do this but i will...
If you say by America its population, then no you are right. But as this is not the case America (the word) is here being used as the "Military Industrial Complex"
Then it does, for the following reason, conflict. For the "Military Industrial Complex" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex) conflict means Profit..
You blame others of think thinking things through but you are as blind as you claim others to be. Please don't pretend like you actually know what is happening.
Motive does not equall crime.
The police has more work to do if there are more criminals, is the police letting killers and rapists go free so they can keep working?
The bike repairman in my town gets money for fixing bikes, is he going out at night breaking and stealing bikes?
Every employee up for promotion would benefit from their boss dying. Are all employees up for promotion killers?
Amnesty international has more work to do if bad governments are locking up political prisoners. Is Amnesty international supporting regime's like Iran to create work?
When your parents die you get part of their property. Are you going to kill your parents?
A doctor has more work when more people get sick. Are all doctors working on a disease that will wipe out all of humanity?
A construction worker has more work to do if there are more buildings to rebuild. Are all construction workers terrorists out to bomb the world?
McDonalds can make more money if people have less free time to spend cooking. Is McDonalds planning to steal everyone's free time?
PETA can make more money if there is more animal cruelty. Is PETA running an animal torture centre?
The military industrial complex can make more money if there is war. Is the military industrial complex creating wars?
Motivation does not equall crime. Would you know what happened if you suggested to start a war for profit? You would probably get dragged out to court the same day or at best get fired for even uttering something that stupid.
The US maintains it's military regardless of war. More war doesn't warrent a massive increase in spending because the US military maintains a super power army wich needs to constantly be in a state of possible war.
On August 27 2011 04:51 zalz wrote: Still with that oil nonesense...
How many drops of oil has the US taken from Iraq? Because currently the meter stands at 0. Or is that also an illuminati ruse?
The ammount of dictator supporters in this threat is getting ridiculous. I suppose it's easier to support a dictator when it's not your people he's oppressing. Kind of sickening that people have turned the suffering of the Libyan people into a joke just to feed their anti-Americanism and their conspiracy theories.
What anti-Americanism?
If I could have it my way, I would have cut a deal with the rebels for a % of their oil or drilling rights or what name you to get rid of Gaddafi. It seems they already cut that deal. Gotta profit off all that military expense.
Who controls the oil fields in Iraq?
Who put in place the Iraqi oil ministry?
Give me a break. America would be retarded NOT to make money off that Iraqi oil.
Who runs the Iraqi oil ministry? It get's filled by the party's that get elected by the Iraqi people. You can't just make stuff up and make it fact because you think it sounds reasonable.
If you have evidence that the game is rigged in the Iraqi oil ministry then by all means give me some of that evidence. If you don't have evidence then keep those stories to yourself and stop pretending like it's fact. You need proof for something to be considered. You can't just go "ooh well this sounds reasonable, ergo it's gotta be true".
Even if the game is rigged then that would be the worst idea in history. Remove dictator that sells oil to replace with a democracy that is hard to predict wich is at best going to sell us the same oil. Think it through, don't just scream "oil lol".
If you say by America its population, then no you are right. But as this is not the case America (the word) is here being used as the "Military Industrial Complex"
Then it does, for the following reason, conflict. For the "Military Industrial Complex" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex) conflict means Profit..
You blame others of think thinking things through but you are as blind as you claim others to be. Please don't pretend like you actually know what is happening.
Motive does not equall crime.
The police has more work to do if there are more criminals, is the police letting killers and rapists go free so they can keep working?
The bike repairman in my town gets money for fixing bikes, is he going out at night breaking and stealing bikes?
Every employee up for promotion would benefit from their boss dying. Are all employees up for promotion killers?
Amnesty international has more work to do if bad governments are locking up political prisoners. Is Amnesty international supporting regime's like Iran to create work?
When your parents die you get part of their property. Are you going to kill your parents?
A doctor has more work when more people get sick. Are all doctors working on a disease that will wipe out all of humanity?
A construction worker has more work to do if there are more buildings to rebuild. Are all construction workers terrorists out to bomb the world?
McDonalds can make more money if people have less free time to spend cooking. Is McDonalds planning to steal everyone's free time?
PETA can make more money if there is more animal cruelty. Is PETA running an animal torture centre?
The military industrial complex can make more money if there is war. Is the military industrial complex creating wars?
Motivation does not equall crime. Would you know what happened if you suggested to start a war for profit? You would probably get dragged out to court the same day or at best get fired for even uttering something that stupid.
The US maintains it's military regardless of war. More war doesn't warrent a massive increase in spending because the US military maintains a super power army wich needs to constantly be in a state of possible war.
Wasnt saddam preparing to start accepting only euros for oil ? : o
On August 27 2011 04:51 zalz wrote: Still with that oil nonesense...
How many drops of oil has the US taken from Iraq? Because currently the meter stands at 0. Or is that also an illuminati ruse?
The ammount of dictator supporters in this threat is getting ridiculous. I suppose it's easier to support a dictator when it's not your people he's oppressing. Kind of sickening that people have turned the suffering of the Libyan people into a joke just to feed their anti-Americanism and their conspiracy theories.
What anti-Americanism?
If I could have it my way, I would have cut a deal with the rebels for a % of their oil or drilling rights or what name you to get rid of Gaddafi. It seems they already cut that deal. Gotta profit off all that military expense.
Who controls the oil fields in Iraq?
Who put in place the Iraqi oil ministry?
Give me a break. America would be retarded NOT to make money off that Iraqi oil.
Who runs the Iraqi oil ministry? It get's filled by the party's that get elected by the Iraqi people. You can't just make stuff up and make it fact because you think it sounds reasonable.
If you have evidence that the game is rigged in the Iraqi oil ministry then by all means give me some of that evidence. If you don't have evidence then keep those stories to yourself and stop pretending like it's fact. You need proof for something to be considered. You can't just go "ooh well this sounds reasonable, ergo it's gotta be true".
Even if the game is rigged then that would be the worst idea in history. Remove dictator that sells oil to replace with a democracy that is hard to predict wich is at best going to sell us the same oil. Think it through, don't just scream "oil lol".
I shouldnt do this but i will...
If you say by America its population, then no you are right. But as this is not the case America (the word) is here being used as the "Military Industrial Complex"
Then it does, for the following reason, conflict. For the "Military Industrial Complex" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex) conflict means Profit..
You blame others of think thinking things through but you are as blind as you claim others to be. Please don't pretend like you actually know what is happening.
Motive does not equall crime.
The police has more work to do if there are more criminals, is the police letting killers and rapists go free so they can keep working?
The bike repairman in my town gets money for fixing bikes, is he going out at night breaking and stealing bikes?
Every employee up for promotion would benefit from their boss dying. Are all employees up for promotion killers?
Amnesty international has more work to do if bad governments are locking up political prisoners. Is Amnesty international supporting regime's like Iran to create work?
When your parents die you get part of their property. Are you going to kill your parents?
A doctor has more work when more people get sick. Are all doctors working on a disease that will wipe out all of humanity?
A construction worker has more work to do if there are more buildings to rebuild. Are all construction workers terrorists out to bomb the world?
McDonalds can make more money if people have less free time to spend cooking. Is McDonalds planning to steal everyone's free time?
PETA can make more money if there is more animal cruelty. Is PETA running an animal torture centre?
The military industrial complex can make more money if there is war. Is the military industrial complex creating wars?
Motivation does not equall crime. Would you know what happened if you suggested to start a war for profit? You would probably get dragged out to court the same day or at best get fired for even uttering something that stupid.
The US maintains it's military regardless of war. More war doesn't warrent a massive increase in spending because the US military maintains a super power army wich needs to constantly be in a state of possible war.
Wasnt saddam preparing to start accepting only euros for oil ? : o
A twitter of a Libyan soldier or fighter, could be fake http://twitter.com/#!/LibyanLiberal But I wanted to summarize from it The rebels he is fighting with are mostly berbers (those who are kafirs, i.e. not Muslims). The rebels fighting together with infidels are not going to have much respect among Muslims. And the Libyans do not care that these are "special force, not regular army" He is calling for JIHAD versus NATO.
Berbers, eastern youth wanting just western lifestyle with sex and alcohol (sex outside of marriage is punished in Libya, so they have to go to the neighbour countries for sex. And this is not funny, this is a real problem for them), islamists (loyalist call them Al Qaeda, but actually they are not, it is just "Al Qaeda" is a well known brand name for westerners), ex gaddafi corrupt politics now in NTC... do you really think they are gong to build a real democracy? Hypocrisy in all this "rebels for democracy" is that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamahiriya is already a kind of direct democracy. Learn is what http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_People's_Congress_(political) "Sounds good", you may say, but was it in real life? Yes! The direct democracy is described in that Gaddafi's green book, it is his idea. And he is a man of ideas, obsessed with them. He is not about the money and wealth for himself, maybe that's why they call him crazy. No doubt he and his family had enough money but with all that milliards he could allow much more wealth. But he used the money for his ideas and his projects. Limiting the wealth was another problem. All high profit business was nationalized, no way to become extra rich in Libya. But many wanted to become.
On August 27 2011 04:51 zalz wrote: Still with that oil nonesense...
How many drops of oil has the US taken from Iraq? Because currently the meter stands at 0. Or is that also an illuminati ruse?
The ammount of dictator supporters in this threat is getting ridiculous. I suppose it's easier to support a dictator when it's not your people he's oppressing. Kind of sickening that people have turned the suffering of the Libyan people into a joke just to feed their anti-Americanism and their conspiracy theories.
What anti-Americanism?
If I could have it my way, I would have cut a deal with the rebels for a % of their oil or drilling rights or what name you to get rid of Gaddafi. It seems they already cut that deal. Gotta profit off all that military expense.
Who controls the oil fields in Iraq?
Who put in place the Iraqi oil ministry?
Give me a break. America would be retarded NOT to make money off that Iraqi oil.
Who runs the Iraqi oil ministry? It get's filled by the party's that get elected by the Iraqi people. You can't just make stuff up and make it fact because you think it sounds reasonable.
If you have evidence that the game is rigged in the Iraqi oil ministry then by all means give me some of that evidence. If you don't have evidence then keep those stories to yourself and stop pretending like it's fact. You need proof for something to be considered. You can't just go "ooh well this sounds reasonable, ergo it's gotta be true".
Even if the game is rigged then that would be the worst idea in history. Remove dictator that sells oil to replace with a democracy that is hard to predict wich is at best going to sell us the same oil. Think it through, don't just scream "oil lol".
I shouldnt do this but i will...
If you say by America its population, then no you are right. But as this is not the case America (the word) is here being used as the "Military Industrial Complex"
Then it does, for the following reason, conflict. For the "Military Industrial Complex" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex) conflict means Profit..
You blame others of think thinking things through but you are as blind as you claim others to be. Please don't pretend like you actually know what is happening.
Motive does not equall crime.
The police has more work to do if there are more criminals, is the police letting killers and rapists go free so they can keep working?
The bike repairman in my town gets money for fixing bikes, is he going out at night breaking and stealing bikes?
Every employee up for promotion would benefit from their boss dying. Are all employees up for promotion killers?
Amnesty international has more work to do if bad governments are locking up political prisoners. Is Amnesty international supporting regime's like Iran to create work?
When your parents die you get part of their property. Are you going to kill your parents?
A doctor has more work when more people get sick. Are all doctors working on a disease that will wipe out all of humanity?
A construction worker has more work to do if there are more buildings to rebuild. Are all construction workers terrorists out to bomb the world?
McDonalds can make more money if people have less free time to spend cooking. Is McDonalds planning to steal everyone's free time?
PETA can make more money if there is more animal cruelty. Is PETA running an animal torture centre?
The military industrial complex can make more money if there is war. Is the military industrial complex creating wars?
Motivation does not equall crime. Would you know what happened if you suggested to start a war for profit? You would probably get dragged out to court the same day or at best get fired for even uttering something that stupid.
The US maintains it's military regardless of war. More war doesn't warrent a massive increase in spending because the US military maintains a super power army wich needs to constantly be in a state of possible war.
Wasnt saddam preparing to start accepting only euros for oil ? : o
Nope
hm
Foreign Exchange: Saddam Turns His Back on Greenbacks
Europe's dream of promoting the euro as a competitor to the U.S. dollar may get a boost from SADDAM HUSSEIN. Iraq says that from now on, it wants payments for its oil in euros, despite the fact that the battered European currency unit, which used to be worth quite a bit more than $1, has dropped to about 82[cents]. Iraq says it will no longer accept dollars for oil because it does not want to deal "in the currency of the enemy."
On August 27 2011 04:51 zalz wrote: Still with that oil nonesense...
How many drops of oil has the US taken from Iraq? Because currently the meter stands at 0. Or is that also an illuminati ruse?
The ammount of dictator supporters in this threat is getting ridiculous. I suppose it's easier to support a dictator when it's not your people he's oppressing. Kind of sickening that people have turned the suffering of the Libyan people into a joke just to feed their anti-Americanism and their conspiracy theories.
What anti-Americanism?
If I could have it my way, I would have cut a deal with the rebels for a % of their oil or drilling rights or what name you to get rid of Gaddafi. It seems they already cut that deal. Gotta profit off all that military expense.
Who controls the oil fields in Iraq?
Who put in place the Iraqi oil ministry?
Give me a break. America would be retarded NOT to make money off that Iraqi oil.
Who runs the Iraqi oil ministry? It get's filled by the party's that get elected by the Iraqi people. You can't just make stuff up and make it fact because you think it sounds reasonable.
If you have evidence that the game is rigged in the Iraqi oil ministry then by all means give me some of that evidence. If you don't have evidence then keep those stories to yourself and stop pretending like it's fact. You need proof for something to be considered. You can't just go "ooh well this sounds reasonable, ergo it's gotta be true".
Even if the game is rigged then that would be the worst idea in history. Remove dictator that sells oil to replace with a democracy that is hard to predict wich is at best going to sell us the same oil. Think it through, don't just scream "oil lol".
I shouldnt do this but i will...
If you say by America its population, then no you are right. But as this is not the case America (the word) is here being used as the "Military Industrial Complex"
Then it does, for the following reason, conflict. For the "Military Industrial Complex" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex) conflict means Profit..
You blame others of think thinking things through but you are as blind as you claim others to be. Please don't pretend like you actually know what is happening.
Motive does not equall crime.
The police has more work to do if there are more criminals, is the police letting killers and rapists go free so they can keep working?
The bike repairman in my town gets money for fixing bikes, is he going out at night breaking and stealing bikes?
Every employee up for promotion would benefit from their boss dying. Are all employees up for promotion killers?
Amnesty international has more work to do if bad governments are locking up political prisoners. Is Amnesty international supporting regime's like Iran to create work?
When your parents die you get part of their property. Are you going to kill your parents?
A doctor has more work when more people get sick. Are all doctors working on a disease that will wipe out all of humanity?
A construction worker has more work to do if there are more buildings to rebuild. Are all construction workers terrorists out to bomb the world?
McDonalds can make more money if people have less free time to spend cooking. Is McDonalds planning to steal everyone's free time?
PETA can make more money if there is more animal cruelty. Is PETA running an animal torture centre?
The military industrial complex can make more money if there is war. Is the military industrial complex creating wars?
Motivation does not equall crime. Would you know what happened if you suggested to start a war for profit? You would probably get dragged out to court the same day or at best get fired for even uttering something that stupid.
The US maintains it's military regardless of war. More war doesn't warrent a massive increase in spending because the US military maintains a super power army wich needs to constantly be in a state of possible war.
Wasnt saddam preparing to start accepting only euros for oil ? : o
Nope
hm
Foreign Exchange: Saddam Turns His Back on Greenbacks
Europe's dream of promoting the euro as a competitor to the U.S. dollar may get a boost from SADDAM HUSSEIN. Iraq says that from now on, it wants payments for its oil in euros, despite the fact that the battered European currency unit, which used to be worth quite a bit more than $1, has dropped to about 82[cents]. Iraq says it will no longer accept dollars for oil because it does not want to deal "in the currency of the enemy."
EPT
