|
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. |
On March 21 2011 21:26 Krehlmar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 20:30 MrBadMan wrote:
No one knows who the rebel leaders are, what their goals are, and what they are actually protesting against. It would not surprise me if CIA/SAS/MI6 are heavily involved with those "rebels".
I just know a couple hard facts about the Ghaddafi regime: he nationalized the oil ressources 1969, taking them away from british and US oil companies; and under Ghaddafi, Lybia was transformed into the richest African nation, with a standard of living that rivals Portugal.
I also predict: if the current aggression succeeds in removing the Ghaddafi regime, his successor will be a Lybian who has studied in Oxford/Harvard/Yale and has spent the last 10+ years in the USA or in Europe. The first thing he will do is privatize the oil, with bids going to US and British companies. After 10 years, Lybia will be among the poorest countries of Africa again.
I bet the kind of "freedom" those rebels are fighting for is the freedom to privatize the oil ressources, aka "neoliberalism". The Lybians would be crazy if they'd allow this to happen. I'm all for the bombings and western meddeling but this man right here actually hit the spot. What he is saying is 90% correct, if you don't believe him then read up on why Tunisians even revolted in the first place: Ben Ali sold out half the country to private interests from the west, a large reason why nobody gave a shit before the revolution because everyone in the west was ganing from it. It's not conspiracy, it's just facts. My father's tunisian I know this as a fact, my cuisins brother was the minister of the country bank... he overseered the entire sellout (which he couldn't stop sadly). Yes there are to many "OMFG OIL USA CAREFACE" posts but there is ofcourse a huge reason to why the US and West are bombing Libya, but not Baharein or Jemen.
Isn't your cousin's brother ... just your cousin? Sounds like a "I know someone who knows someone who knows someone" kind of thing.
|
On March 21 2011 21:18 Greg_J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 21:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
The change Barack Obama was talking about...
I'm not really seeing it , seems exactly the same as the last puppet to me.
Another warmonger in the white house determined to bankrupt the U.S.A. except the people of Libyia stood up to thier government, the goverment replied using military force and the allied forces are stepping into defend them. Theres no gain in this for U.S.A because Libyia was giving the west what it wanted anyway. The U.S.A didn't lead the push towards taking action. Theres so many reasons why this is different to Iraq or any previously instances that might be refurred to as warmongering. edit: O.K thats falling into the argueing back and forth that we are warned not to do so I will cease making any further contribution to this thread before I get myself in trouble
There's more than just oil (profits which go to Libya anyways). After this is over, huge construction contracts will be granted to EU/US companies, which will rake in billions of dollars of profits. Libya's oil sector will be exploited for EU/US companies to make billions of dollars. The new rebel government will be so entrenched with the EU/US, it'll be impossible for them to survive independently. That is, if Libya doesn't degenerate into an Iraq-style civil war for 5 years.
Are we going to intervene in Syria as well? That place looks like it's going the route of Libya, especially since the younger Assad learned a lot from his father, eg destroy all opposition ruthlessly. His father once bragged that he killed 30,000 protesters and his only regret was that it wasn't 300,000.
|
On March 21 2011 21:09 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 21:02 MrBadMan wrote:
Oil is the most profitable trade product in the world. The USA and GB dont want the oil itself, they want the insane profits that come with selling said oil. Right now, those profits go to the Lybian people. I guarantee, after this is over, those profits will go into the pockets of US/GB companies. It's exactly the same thing that happened in Iraq. BP Plc and Exxon Mobil Corp run the oil fields in Iraq now. They will be running the oil fields in Lybia before long, and the Lybian society will fall back to poverty.
If u think the Libyan ppl are profiting from the oil and not just Gaddafi and his clan you are delusional.
I'm sure Gaddafi and his clan profited enough off it but so did the libyan people.
Do you have any proof that the libyan people didn't profit off it?
Because i have proofs that Libya developed quite a lot in the last decade and people aren't doing bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index (Libya ain't doing bad).
What 0mar said. Who keeps on saying why is it oil since west already bought oil from Libya, yes they did but it wasn't BP selling it, it was a Libyan company which means profit stayed in Libya.
|
I guess this revolution is planned by western secret services to gain control over oil rich country. And now when it become clear it is failing they decided to attack openly.
Gaddafi is not a good person for sure. But it is impossible to plant democracy in a country like Libya. Either you give the power into one hand or face endless tribe wars...
|
On March 21 2011 23:56 Petruccio wrote:
I guess this revolution is planned by western secret services to gain control over oil rich country. And now when it become clear it is failing they decided to attack openly.
Gaddafi is not a good person for sure. But it is impossible to plant democracy in a country like Libya. Either you give the power into one hand or face endless tribe wars...
Why bother going to all that trouble when Gaddafi is giving you all the oil you want anyway?
|
Can we stop with the oil conspiricies, American bashing, and countless other trashy slander that the last two pages has become. This was a great live report thread by stealth blue before. I want to see news on it, not the opinions of a bunch of people who have really no idea what they are talking about.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 21 2011 23:56 Petruccio wrote:
I guess this revolution is planned by western secret services to gain control over oil rich country. And now when it become clear it is failing they decided to attack openly.
Gaddafi is not a good person for sure. But it is impossible to plant democracy in a country like Libya. Either you give the power into one hand or face endless tribe wars... So western secret services started the protests in Tunisia and Egypt only so their master plan can work, to have a protests/revolution installed in Lybia to get their oil, which in fact, was given to the West before? Sounds reasonable.
Russland seem really unsure what they think about this. Also anyone have infos about the italian ship?
|
On March 21 2011 19:11 Pika Chu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 12:34 Krikkitone wrote:On March 21 2011 10:54 pookychoo wrote:On March 21 2011 09:28 Half wrote:On March 21 2011 08:34 pookychoo wrote:On March 21 2011 08:27 Half wrote:As for "its just an excuse to meddle" Its not "hypocritical" to go out to eat some nights and stay in for dinner other nights. 'Civillians are being killed' is almost certainly a reason for involvement.. it is not the only reason in this case nor would it be a sufficient reason. Its about "Whats going on" versus "How easily can we stop it". No, we don't run military operations on every oppressive regime, and it would be retarded if we did, we'd be in 10 Iraq wars and then we'd probably cause nuclear war with China. We've ran similar operations in the past, like all the previous no fly zones we set up. The fact of the matter is, Libya is a country where we can do a lot of good, both for our own interests, and for the Libyan people, and only use a few dozen fighter planes a few hundred tomahawks. There aren't a lot of other cases when an atrocity could be prevented with that relatively low cost on us. And in most of them, we did intervene, with positive results. Yes it is hypocritical to only get involved in countries that are oil rich It really only has a tangential relationship to oil. Name a single dictatorship with a strong fighting opposition aligned with western ideals that we did not support. Name a dictatorship that you (US) didn't support? That's kinda ironic that you unintentionally phrased it that way, given what happened with Saddam being supported and then becoming an enemy. And actually, you just reinforce my point that protecting civilians is just an excuse to get involved, and not a truthful objective. Are you saying that the US chose not to protect civilians in places like Rwanda, Zimbabwe or even more recently Bahrain because they don't have a "strong fighting opposition aligned with western ideals"? Libya shouldn't even qualify based on that statement, it is heavily tribal and does not hold western ideals either. Nobody expects the US to be world police and take care of all the worlds problems, just don't bullshit about getting involved to "protect the civilians". The US is happy to let other countries sort out their own problems even with terrible loss of life if there's nothing in it for themselves. And let's not even get into the number of civilians who die as collateral damage when the US does decide to get involved. It ain't about protecting civilians and it's hypocritical to suggest that is the purpose. The US didn't intervene militarily to help civilians in places like Rwanda, etc. because the citizens in Rwanda were not being threatened with tanks and airplanes, they were being threatened with machetes. The US can stop tanks and planes easily... machetes or infantry/police inside cities not so much. (much more collateral damage) The reason there was an intervention by the West in Libya is 1. Armed opposition that West favors (currently) 2. easy ability to destroy enemy assets (terrain) 3. World public opinion somewhat favors intervention (because of other Arab revolutions, and the fact that it does destabilize the Oil situation to have a long ongoing rebellion) Basically, Libya allows intervention on the cheap. Any/most collateral damage can be blamed on the rebels themselves. The future of any government in Libya can be blamed on the rebels themselves. The rebels don't appear to be any worse off for western interests than the dictator. The rebels also don't appear to be any worse for the population than the dictator. When you have an armed opposition, that is the Perfect time to intervene in the way the West is doing it. Let the rebels do actual fighting, the West just handles the other issues. (asuming rebels > dictator) To say a war is helping the civilians in Libya is stupid and has no sustain. It's helping the rebels, that yes. And i believe it would've been easier to stop the massacre in Rwanda, you didn't need to bomb the country for it. The rest of the argumentation is valid. But because it's in the interest of some countries doesn't mean it's in the interest of the population. For arguments on this please view my previous posts, i gave enough. So the libyans now have free access to arms, provided by Gaddafi. What will we do if this gets to a civil war between pro-gadafi and anti-gadafi civilians?
It already IS a civil war (military forces on both sides). And we are currently intervening weakening the side with more 'heavy hardware'. (which is also the side we tend to support)
Now if you are totally noninterventionist, ie military force is Only for defending your own country, then there is a good reason to object. But IF you can justify intervening in a war between two other countries, then you can use the exact same justification for intervening in a war Within a country.
In any war, the questions are
1) which side do we favor (for any reason)...every country/informed citizen always has one side in any conflict that they favor... possibly only to a degree.. unless they want the status quo Exactly as is.
2) how much should we get involved?.. a more complex question with short+long term cost-benefit, public image/diplomacy, etc
It doesn't really matter if the war is Civil or otherwise. (IF you are concerned about maintaining internal sovereignty, then you still would tend to favor one side over the other. Russia+China probably favor Kaddaffi... but so weakly that they are content to just protest... or possibly they even favor the rebels, but would rather get the domestic/diplomatic benefits of criticizing the West, so their support is not vetoing a UN resolution)
I currently think the Arabs+West have chosen wisely in favoring the rebels. (I don't Know they will be better than Kaddaffi for the population, but I think they will.)
I currently also think the right amount of intervention was chosen.
|
On March 21 2011 20:30 MrBadMan wrote:
No one knows who the rebel leaders are, what their goals are, and what they are actually protesting against. It would not surprise me if CIA/SAS/MI6 are heavily involved with those "rebels".
I just know a couple hard facts about the Ghaddafi regime: he nationalized the oil ressources 1969, taking them away from british and US oil companies; and under Ghaddafi, Lybia was transformed into the richest African nation, with a standard of living that rivals Portugal.
I also predict: if the current aggression succeeds in removing the Ghaddafi regime, his successor will be a Lybian who has studied in Oxford/Harvard/Yale and has spent the last 10+ years in the USA or in Europe. The first thing he will do is privatize the oil, with bids going to US and British companies. After 10 years, Lybia will be among the poorest countries of Africa again.
I bet the kind of "freedom" those rebels are fighting for is the freedom to privatize the oil ressources, aka "neoliberalism". The Lybians would be crazy if they'd allow this to happen.
Yap thats pretty much whats going to happen.
|
On March 22 2011 00:23 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 20:30 MrBadMan wrote:
No one knows who the rebel leaders are, what their goals are, and what they are actually protesting against. It would not surprise me if CIA/SAS/MI6 are heavily involved with those "rebels".
I just know a couple hard facts about the Ghaddafi regime: he nationalized the oil ressources 1969, taking them away from british and US oil companies; and under Ghaddafi, Lybia was transformed into the richest African nation, with a standard of living that rivals Portugal.
I also predict: if the current aggression succeeds in removing the Ghaddafi regime, his successor will be a Lybian who has studied in Oxford/Harvard/Yale and has spent the last 10+ years in the USA or in Europe. The first thing he will do is privatize the oil, with bids going to US and British companies. After 10 years, Lybia will be among the poorest countries of Africa again.
I bet the kind of "freedom" those rebels are fighting for is the freedom to privatize the oil ressources, aka "neoliberalism". The Lybians would be crazy if they'd allow this to happen. Yap thats pretty much whats going to happen.
You mean Gaddafi funded terrorism around the world for 30 years, trained a lot of terrorists, mercenaries and tyrants, got his country engaged in several wars and then finally in the late 90's seemed to turn himself around, began selling oil to the west, stopped funding maniacs around the world and improved the lot of his country a bit? Obviously not enough however, Libyans, just like their neighbours in Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria etc., are pissed off at their government and have started taking similar actions. The difference in Libya is Gaddafi sent his tanks and planes to attack the protestors, thus resulting in the necessity of foreign intervention.
After all this is over Libya will be a much happier and more prosperous nation.
|
Well its hard to know the opinion of the total population when you are an outsider. I think it is proven that strong economic performance often trumps 'freedom' and human rights in terms of public opinion (e.g. in China)
|
Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria had a massive hyperinflation over the course of the last year, doubling and tripling their cost of living. Lybia however, had no hyperinflation whatsoever: the socialist Ghaddafi made sure the prices stayed stable. So again, who are the protestors and what are they protesting about? And why are they not protesting peacefully, and where does their heavy weaponry come from?
If you consider how many US and GB citizens are shareholders of companies like BP and Exxon (millions of people), you have to take everything they say in this matter with a grain of salt. Most of them directly profit financially from a regime change in Lybia.
|
On March 21 2011 20:30 MrBadMan wrote:
No one knows who the rebel leaders are, what their goals are, and what they are actually protesting against. It would not surprise me if CIA/SAS/MI6 are heavily involved with those "rebels".
Funny you should mention the SAS. Rebel leaders ousted or caught SAS troops about 3 weeks ago.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8365069/Libya-SAS-mission-that-began-and-ended-in-error.html
This entire uprising has the smell of the CIA/MI6 all over it. Their handlers in Libya sensed something was afoot and a concerted effort to hijack the revolution took over. This is not crazy talk; this is exactly what happened in '50s, '60s and '70s in South America as well as the Middle East. It only backfired in Libya because Gaddafi was crazy enough to bomb his own people to death. After the embarrassing overthrow of Ben Ali and Mubarak, in which Western powers were caught unawares, I'm 100% sure our intelligence services stepped up surveillance in all other Arab countries to make sure that didn't happen again. I wouldn't be surprised if Libya was used as a proxy to oppose a free, democratic Egypt that thumbs its nose at the West.
|
On March 22 2011 01:04 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2011 00:23 ImFromPortugal wrote:On March 21 2011 20:30 MrBadMan wrote:
No one knows who the rebel leaders are, what their goals are, and what they are actually protesting against. It would not surprise me if CIA/SAS/MI6 are heavily involved with those "rebels".
I just know a couple hard facts about the Ghaddafi regime: he nationalized the oil ressources 1969, taking them away from british and US oil companies; and under Ghaddafi, Lybia was transformed into the richest African nation, with a standard of living that rivals Portugal.
I also predict: if the current aggression succeeds in removing the Ghaddafi regime, his successor will be a Lybian who has studied in Oxford/Harvard/Yale and has spent the last 10+ years in the USA or in Europe. The first thing he will do is privatize the oil, with bids going to US and British companies. After 10 years, Lybia will be among the poorest countries of Africa again.
I bet the kind of "freedom" those rebels are fighting for is the freedom to privatize the oil ressources, aka "neoliberalism". The Lybians would be crazy if they'd allow this to happen. Yap thats pretty much whats going to happen. You mean Gaddafi funded terrorism around the world for 30 years, trained a lot of terrorists, mercenaries and tyrants, got his country engaged in several wars and then finally in the late 90's seemed to turn himself around, began selling oil to the west, stopped funding maniacs around the world and improved the lot of his country a bit? Obviously not enough however, Libyans, just like their neighbours in Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria etc., are pissed off at their government and have started taking similar actions. The difference in Libya is Gaddafi sent his tanks and planes to attack the protestors, thus resulting in the necessity of foreign intervention. After all this is over Libya will be a much happier and more prosperous nation.
I wonder what the western powers gonna do when people start protesting in Angola  they seem to like their puppet Eduardo dos Santos very much.
|
On March 22 2011 01:15 MrBadMan wrote:
If you consider how many US and GB citizens are shareholders of companies like BP and Exxon (millions of people), you have to take everything they say in this matter with a grain of salt. Most of them directly profit financially from a regime change in Lybia.
REALLY? This has to be a troll. How many people living in the US/GB on TL have stock in BP or Exxon? I'm betting that that less than 5% actually own stock in an oil company and thats including mutual fund owners and less than 1% of that 5% are salivating at the thought of a regime change in Libya so that they can get rich. BTW, you don't have to live in the united states or GB to own stock in an oil company.
Using that argument, of all the arguments you could have, to discredit a significant portion of the TL community is... just mindblowing.
|
Just to clarify, when exactly did we establish that if there is a new government to replace the current regime, the oil industry won't stay nationalized? It sounds like it's a stated fact.
|
On March 22 2011 03:09 FabledIntegral wrote:
Just to clarify, when exactly did we establish that if there is a new government to replace the current regime, the oil industry won't stay nationalized? It sounds like it's a stated fact.
It's not a fact but it has a very high probability of happening.
@jello_biafra the west did received oil, it isn't about that, Gaddafi and the west became friends during the last years even though he shouted all kind of nonsense. You keep on repeating the same stuff without bringing one argument while around you there has been many analysis with decent arguments that simply refute what you say.
|
On March 21 2011 21:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
The change Barack Obama was talking about...
I'm not really seeing it , seems exactly the same as the last puppet to me.
Another warmonger in the white house determined to bankrupt the U.S.A.
You are a complete idiot. How stupid can you be to call Obama a warmonger or even compare him to Bush? Oh yeah, you're from Australia and probably don't know jack about whats going on in America except the stupid propagandistic shit you read on line. The economy was fucked before Obama and he is working against the grain trying to straighten stuff up. Thats besides the point tho, if Obama chose to not act in Libya you would probably be the first retard to say something about that.
|
On March 22 2011 03:41 ckw wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 21:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
The change Barack Obama was talking about...
I'm not really seeing it , seems exactly the same as the last puppet to me.
Another warmonger in the white house determined to bankrupt the U.S.A. You are a complete idiot. How stupid can you be to call Obama a warmonger or even compare him to Bush? Oh yeah, you're from Australia and probably don't know jack about whats going on in America except the stupid propagandistic shit you read on line. The economy was fucked before Obama and he is working against the grain trying to straighten stuff up. Thats besides the point tho, if Obama chose to not act in Libya you would probably be the first retard to say something about that.
Dude, first calm down everyone has the right to their opinion and calling other users stupid and idiots wont help your argumentation and its just not polite. You are saying the USA had not choice but to be involved in this Libyan crises? i think the other European countries could handle this matter.
|
Can we please stop posting these conspiracy theories? This thread is about what's going on in Lybia.
To quote: Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated.
7:20pm
The UN-approved no-fly zone over Libya is expanding and will soon cover a 1,000-km area as aircraft from additional coalition countries arrive in the region, the head of US Africa Command said on Monday.
Carter Ham, the US Army General, told a Pentagon briefing that coalition air forces were continuing to fly missions to sustain the no-fly zone and that Libyan ground forces were moving south f
7:40pm
Forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi "pulled back" from the rebel stronghold of Benghazi and two other towns after UN-authorised airstrikes, a US national security official said on Monday.
The official, who declined to be identified, said advances by Gaddafi's forces against Benghazi, Ajdabiya and Misrata had "stalled" as a consequence of the military action by US and European forces that began on Saturday.
8:25pm
The United States will soon reduce its participation in the coalition operation in Libya, Russia's Interfax news agency cited US Defence Secretary Robert Gates as saying on Monday.
Gates also said it would be a mistake for the coalition to set for itself the goal of killing Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, the news agency reported.
8:26pm
British Prime Minister David Cameron said on Monday there was no legal authority for regime change in Libya despite suggestions by ministers that air strikes could target Muammar Gaddafi.
"Our view is clear - there is no decent future for Libya with Colonel Gaddafi remaining in power," Cameron told the House of Commons during its first debate since international forces launched air and sea strikes in Libya.
Last updates from Al Jazeera blog on Lybia
http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-21-0
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
