EPTLibyan Uprising - Page 30
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. | ||
|
bananafever
Austria348 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On March 14 2011 03:44 Consolidate wrote: You really think the US is hesitant because of oil? Not two weeks ago the rebels were directly opposed to the idea of any foreign intervention. You really think that it would be wise for the US to unilaterally intervene without properly assessing the situation? The U.S. does not get it's majority of Oil from Libya, if any. The Rebels have asked for a no fly zone to keep Gaddafi jets from bombing them and so on. France, the United Kingdom and the Gulf States have called for a no fly zone. Meanwhile Obama says that if Humanitarian Law is being broken then something should be done, he and everyone else knows it is being broken from the bombing of civilians to the ambush and killing of Journalists. It's sad that we went into Iraq for no justified reason yet by doing so we seem to be hesitant on doing something that actually has a form of international support. | ||
|
Keniji
Netherlands2569 Posts
On March 14 2011 03:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The U.S. does not get it's majority of Oil from Libya, if any. The Rebels have asked for a no fly zone to keep Gaddafi jets from bombing them and so on. France, the United Kingdom and the Gulf States have called for a no fly zone. Meanwhile Obama says that if Humanitarian Law is being broken then something should be done, he and everyone else knows it is being broken from the bombing of civilians to the ambush and killing of Journalists. It's sad that we went into Iraq for no justified reason yet by doing so we seem to be hesitant on doing something that actually has a form of international support. You are not alone. Even tho we have politicians in the EU that actually want to do smth. (Sarkozy, UK), the EU still don't get anything done. I'm really disappointed how everyone except UK was angry at Sarkozy, especially Germany (Merkel). Ghaddafi is bombing civilians and everything we do is to say "please resign, it's not ok." uhuhu. | ||
|
Consolidate
United States829 Posts
On March 14 2011 03:45 Keniji wrote: Well ok, your newspost is from the 1st of march. I think the rebels asked for a no-fly zone from the 6th or 7th of march. (that the earliest reports I can find right now) We probably just have a different opinion of what recently is. (tho I thought they asked even earlier, but seems like I was wrong). Edit: I actually don't know how long they have asked. The rebels "claim" they have asked "from day one" for a no-fly zone. At least Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, head of the rebels' National Libyan Council, says so That's the root of the problem -- the rebels are disorganized and without clear leadership. If they should have any hope of defeating Gaddafi, they need to have officers devising coherent battle plans. Without the existence of a united front against Gaddafi, foreign intervention is extremely problematic even from a logistical standpoint. Don't forget that US/UK/France establish a no-fly zone over Iraq from 1992-1998 which didn't do much stop Saddam from murdering his own people. | ||
|
Consolidate
United States829 Posts
On March 14 2011 03:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The U.S. does not get it's majority of Oil from Libya, if any. The Rebels have asked for a no fly zone to keep Gaddafi jets from bombing them and so on. France, the United Kingdom and the Gulf States have called for a no fly zone. Meanwhile Obama says that if Humanitarian Law is being broken then something should be done, he and everyone else knows it is being broken from the bombing of civilians to the ambush and killing of Journalists. It's sad that we went into Iraq for no justified reason yet by doing so we seem to be hesitant on doing something that actually has a form of international support. My first point was to criticize the comic you posted which is implying that that oil is a significant factor. If anything we went into Iraq for MORE justified reasons. Do you realize that Saddam had murdered several orders of magnitude more people than Gaddafi has so far? So much cognitive dissonance... | ||
|
mprs
Canada2933 Posts
On March 14 2011 04:00 Consolidate wrote: That's the root of the problem -- the rebels are disorganized and without clear leadership. If they should have any hope of defeating Gaddafi, they need to have officers devising coherent battle plans. Without the existence of a united front against Gaddafi, foreign intervention is extremely problematic even from a logistical standpoint. Don't forget that US/UK/France establish a no-fly zone over Iraq from 1992-1998 which didn't do much stop Saddam from murdering his own people. I assume Obama's hesitation to do something is using resources to solve a conflict elsewhere in the world, where there are many to be solved on his own soil. Am I the only one who thinks that perhaps people shouldn't always look to the US for help? There are many other powerful nations with the means to assist. Right now, the US has its own problems. I'm laughing as I write this since its ironically coming from a Canadian. But my point stands! | ||
|
bananafever
Austria348 Posts
On March 14 2011 04:04 Consolidate wrote: If anything we went into Iraq for MORE justified reasons. yeah saddam wanted to trade his oil in euros, america had no choice.. i wonder if you really believe that bush decided to attack because saddam was such a bad bad guy.. ^^ | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On March 14 2011 04:04 Consolidate wrote: If anything we went into Iraq for MORE justified reasons. Do you realize that Saddam had murdered several orders of magnitude more people than Gaddafi has so far? So much cognitive dissonance... We did not invade Iraq on the premise that he was murdering his own people but because of WMD's. The United States knew Saddam had been murdering his own people, he was murdering people during the Gulf War yet we stopped and did not invade even though he murdered thousands in Halabja 2 years prior. EDIT: Was going to mention Germany and the support of a No Fly Zone but apparently was confused concerning support or something. | ||
|
Consolidate
United States829 Posts
On March 14 2011 04:09 bananafever wrote: yeah saddam wanted to trade oil in euros america had no choice.. The genocide of 200,000 Kurds means nothing to you? What about the invasion of Kuwait? What about the systematic oppression and terrorism of his own people? Of course the fact that Iraq has the world's second largest oil reserves has a lot to do with the US decision to 'intervene', but you're seriously naive if you think that 'humanitarian intervention in Libya' has stronger justification than the American campaign in Iraq. | ||
|
bananafever
Austria348 Posts
On March 14 2011 04:13 Consolidate wrote: The genocide of 200,000 Kurds means nothing to you? What about the invasion of Kuwait? What about the systematic oppression and terrorism of his own people? Of course the fact that Iraq has the world's second largest oil reserves has a lot to do with the US decision to 'intervene', but you're seriously naive if you think that 'humanitarian intervention in Libya' has stronger justification than the American campaign Iraq. bush could have attacked china for the same reasons you're listing here.. but as stated before he went to find wmd which weren't there and yet some americans wanna disavow that they were taken in by their president.. the problem is that you can't comprehend what it means for the us if one country starts to trade oil in any currency but u.s. dollars.. next months iran is gonna start to create an asian stock-exchange for oil.. guess what, it`s deja-vu time.. | ||
|
Consolidate
United States829 Posts
On March 14 2011 04:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: We did not invade Iraq on the premise that he was murdering his own people but because of WMD's. The United States knew Saddam had been murdering his own people, he was murdering people during the Gulf War yet we stopped and did not invade even though he murdered thousands in Halabja 2 years prior. EDIT: Was going to mention Germany and the support of a No Fly Zone but apparently was confused concerning support or something. Even without the WMDs, you seem to think that the US would have had enough justification to invade, so what's your issue? Perhaps you think that the US had blown its chance with Iraq during the Gulf War and did not deserve another shot a decade later which had to be sold to the American public under false pretenses. That's fair enough, but it doesn't change the fact that from a purely humanitarian standpoint, the US invasion was justified if not entirely wise. In the same way, I don't think full-blown intervention in Libya is wise. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
After Mogadishu, any idea of armed intervention (hell, even diplomatic intervention) on the African continent was extreme taboo. Once the genocide started, any political will to do anything to stop it, even diplomatic pressure, simply didn't exist. And then the French intervened and prolonged the genocide by propping up the Hutu government and slowing the advance of the RPF, but that's a historical fact most Frenchmen probably like to avoid Regardless, there's a serious taboo on intervention through military means anywhere near the Middle East, even if it could be argued that such intervention is right. That whole "Rwanda...Never Again!" statement made by politicians apparently was forgotten in Darfur...never again again! and the list goes on. On March 14 2011 04:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: We did not invade Iraq on the premise that he was murdering his own people but because of WMD's. The United States knew Saddam had been murdering his own people, he was murdering people during the Gulf War yet we stopped and did not invade even though he murdered thousands in Halabja 2 years prior. Indeed, although an often-forgotten aspect of the diplomacy leading up to the Gulf War is how difficult it was to garner support from the various Arab countries to condone and support the intervention. A lot of people who haven't studied the conditions upon which Arab and other nations agreed to help and lend their support will say, in various forms, "Saddam could have been taken out then, but we stopped and let him massacre people etc etc", but don't realize that the entirety of the international coalition built to evict Saddam from Kuwait hinged upon very specific goals of liberating Kuwait. Anything further would have completely undermined much of the international support for that war and thrown all the diplomacy into the trashcan Also a lot of people don't agree with this, but the first Gulf War is an absolute perfect example of a limited action with broad international support to preserve the international order (as well as stopping Saddam from being within a few hundred miles of Riyadh). Secretary Baker in particular is very underrated in how successful his diplomacy was in that period | ||
|
Consolidate
United States829 Posts
On March 14 2011 04:18 bananafever wrote: bush could have attacked china for the same reasons you're listing here.. the problem is that you can't comprehend what it means for the us if one country starts to trade oil in any currency but u.s. dollars.. next months iran is gonna start to create an asian stock-exchange for oil.. guess what, it`s deja-vu time.. So you agree that humanitarian reasons alone can't justify intervention in Libya. What are you talking about with regard to Iran? You don't create a 'stock-exchange' for a single commodity. Commodities aren't stocks. I'm pretty sure Iranians can already trade crude futures... | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
On March 14 2011 04:18 bananafever wrote: bush could have attacked china for the same reasons you're listing here.. but as stated before he went to find wmd which weren't there and yet some americans wanna disavow that they were taken in by their president.. the problem is that you can't comprehend what it means for the us if one country starts to trade oil in any currency but u.s. dollars.. next months iran is gonna start to create an asian stock-exchange for oil.. guess what, it`s deja-vu time.. What are you going to say when there isn't a war with Iran over this "stock exchange"? Will it be the same thing 2012 believers say when the world doesn't end? meh i don't want to derail. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6204 Posts
On March 14 2011 04:04 mprs wrote: + Show Spoiler + On March 14 2011 04:00 Consolidate wrote: That's the root of the problem -- the rebels are disorganized and without clear leadership. If they should have any hope of defeating Gaddafi, they need to have officers devising coherent battle plans. Without the existence of a united front against Gaddafi, foreign intervention is extremely problematic even from a logistical standpoint. Don't forget that US/UK/France establish a no-fly zone over Iraq from 1992-1998 which didn't do much stop Saddam from murdering his own people. I assume Obama's hesitation to do something is using resources to solve a conflict elsewhere in the world, where there are many to be solved on his own soil. Am I the only one who thinks that perhaps people shouldn't always look to the US for help? There are many other powerful nations with the means to assist. Right now, the US has its own problems. I'm laughing as I write this since its ironically coming from a Canadian. But my point stands! The Lybians aren't looking to the US for help. They consider Europe their allies and the US to a lesser extent. Plus it's clear France and GB want to do something in Lybia but some countries are hesistant. Look at my own country for example the Netherlands we're neutral in the matter because we had 3 dutch soldiers who were captured. Now they're back in NL so now we can really support the idea of a no fly zone or not. What I am trying to say is there are a lot more factors to take into consideration for every country and not just the US. | ||
|
bananafever
Austria348 Posts
On March 14 2011 04:33 Elegy wrote: What are you going to say when there isn't a war with Iran over this "stock exchange"? Will it be the same thing 2012 believers say when the world doesn't end? meh i don't want to derail. it will never happen.. countries would stop buying and saving dollars.. therefore the value of the dollar would crash dramatically.. and no one can predict what happens after that.. i hope it never happens.. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
The IOB was delayed, delayed, delayed, and I'm pretty sure it already opened for business, and business was slow. VERY SLOW. Or maybe it hasn't opened, and that's what is being talked about, but it's nonsense. The places where the action happens in regards to the oil market are in New York and London, and that's where they are going to stay. I think I remember reading that the reason the opening kept getting delayed was lack of interest in using it, the Iranians didn't want to open it unless it had significant backing from oil purchasing countries, which it didn't. Everyone knew it was just an attempt to piss off / hurt the US, and didn't want to get near it. If anyone "kills" the dollar as the currency oil is traded with, it is going to be the European Union, and the US isn't going to be fighting a war with the EU any time soon. As for Libya, they've asked us for help, the Arab League has said a no-fly zone is okay, it is time for America and Europe to act before Qaddafi crushes the rebels. He now has the upper hand and is going to be moving his army toward Benghazi soon. I remember one of the arguments against invading Iraq was "if the Iraqis really wanted him gone they'd try themselves." That's ignoring the fact that they did, but the Libyans are undeniably trying themselves, and they need our help or they're going to get slaughtered. These are people who have had the boot in their face for 40 years, they're tired of it, they want to be free and they're being slaughtered from the sky for it, and President Obama is dicking around, going off to play some more golf (already played way more in just 2 years than Bush did in 8, remember all the bullshit about Bush not working enough?), and we really get to see the true colors of a lot of people. They'd rather Qaddafi rape his country and slaughter by the thousands (and, if he wins, it will probably be tens of thousands in the oppression afterward), than the US stop him, because they hate America so much. And that's what it is. They hate America, and that's what does their thinking for them. They'll bring up "why not invade China," or scream about oil, or whatever, and they'll just never stop. They don't care one bit about what is going on in Libya. | ||
|
bananafever
Austria348 Posts
but what you're telling me in your second paragraph doesn`t make any sense.. so all the asian countries wanna trade oil only in dollars and therefore buy and save huge amounts of it while bernanke is printing like a madman.. how can that make sense to you, how? | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7883 Posts
On March 14 2011 03:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Either way as the world talks Gaddafi keeps advancing, think this editorial cartoon sums it up perfectly: ![[image loading]](http://media.commercialappeal.com/media/img/photos/2011/03/07/03-07_Adam_Zyglis_t607.jpg) The world would have loved the previous one to overthink. | ||
| ||
