1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Libya

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by ethics, Feb 23, 2011.

  1. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    Just remember, "Its not a war and we are not taking sides." Also, as of a week or so ago we would no longer participate in air strikes as we were turning the missions over to our NATO "friends." Wait we are still conducting air strikes, but they aren't really air strikes in the conventional sense they are just attacks on the air defense system that presents a threat to attacking aircraft. Clear?
     
  2. Stiofan

    Stiofan Master Po

    We know they are on the internet, just not on the news, across your television screen every night like when Bush was President. My question was rhetorical of course.
     
  3. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member


    "When I began protesting, Bush was president and my protest and the energy that grew around it was used by you Democrats to regain political power in the federal government. Four years later and a change of Executive, this nation is still mired in Arab countries waging a war against Arabs of all, or no, faith. Now brought to us by the Blue Team. "

    http://cindysheehanssoapbox.blogspot.com/2011/03/war-loving-frauds-by-cindy-sheehan.html
     
  4. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Libya Rebels Seek $2 Billion Loan, Allies Ponder Next Steps. That's the headline, folks.
    • So this is all with NOT knowing who or even what the Rebels are.
    • This is on top of billions we already are spending on military.
    • This is on top of this being a third war in ME.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-13/libyan-rebels-seek-2-billion-loan-as-allies-ponder-steps-in-qaddafi-fight.html
     
  5. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    As for anti war movement, NPR nails it http://www.npr.org/2011/04/15/135391188/whatever-happened-to-the-anti-war-movement?sc=tw
     
  6. Swamp Fox

    Swamp Fox Veteran Member

  7. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    She is, for the sole purpose that her anti war movement was real. It stemmed from losing her son. For those that took her cause it was more about who sat on the throne. Now that it's their king who rules the land, no one gives a shit.
     
  8. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    France is an ally with France. When their interests match ours, then they play along, otherwise...
     
  9. Swamp Fox

    Swamp Fox Veteran Member

    Agreed, but that's no reason to support Kaddafi against France.
     
  10. Swamp Fox

    Swamp Fox Veteran Member

    The LA Times has two articles - the first says that the failed Bay of Pigs invasion shows the limits of US power, and the second says that, without the US, Nato's Libyan mission is going in circles.

    Well, I'd say the LA Times got it wrong. Both instances show that active American intervention is needed to make things work. During the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the US was just in a supporting role, so it failed; now, with the US again in a supporting role over the LIbyan conflict, Nato is going in circles. The lesson of history is to say that interventions can only succeed if the US takes the lead.

    There are exceptions, of course, because France is taking the lead in the Ivory Coast, and Britain did take the sole lead during the Falklands War, but those are the exceptions, and they only happen because of neoconservative leaders were at the helm in those countries at the relevant times.
     
  11. Andrey

    Andrey A man who sold the world

    Other's side view:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i50hjbp3W4
     
  12. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Wow, you know, I am against the intervention in Libya for many reasons. But Soviets continue to produce the most brainless propaganda that has absolutely little logic. Property? Seriously? How did it work for us in Iraq? Even the oil contracts went to the countries that had little to do with overthrow of Saddam. How did it work out in Afghanistan? Sure, no oil, but serious gas pipes. Even then there's nothing to do there nor Iraq.

    There's nothing to do in Libya either.

    There are many reasons to oppose the intervention, there are many of them in this thread. Good, logical, and certainly disparaging to the US. But to propagate that dreck from Soviets is embarrassing for me to be a Russian. Seriously, Как били гавнюки и так и остались.
     
  13. Andrey

    Andrey A man who sold the world

    The Federal Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 80 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar's steady depreciation against the euro." (Note: the dollar declined 15% against the euro in 2002.)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Oil_not_a_factor_in_the_Iraq_war

    Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    BP has won the contract of the development largest Iraq oil minefield.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/5701252/BP-wins-biggest-Iraq-oil-contract.html

    Additionally, in his memoir, Mr. Greenspan writes: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."[108] However, a Bush administration foreign policy critic Dr. Robert Jervis stated: "Indeed, it is quite likely that failure [in Iraq] will lead the most common explanation to be that the war was fought for oil and Israel. This would be unfortunate." [109] One report by BBC journalist Gregory Palast citing unnamed "insiders" alleged that the U.S. "called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields"[110] and planned for a coup d'état in Iraq long before September 11.[110] It was also alleged by the BBC's Greg Palast that the "new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the OPEC cartel through massive increases in production above OPEC quotas",[110] but in reality Iraq oil production decreased with the neoconservative strategy and had the opposite effect.[111]

    Many critics have focused upon administration officials' past relationship with energy sector corporations. Both the President and Vice President were formerly CEOs of oil and oil-related companies such as Arbusto, Harken Energy, Spectrum 7, and Halliburton. Before the 2003 invasion of Iraq and even before the War on Terror, the administration had prompted anxiety over whether the private sector ties of cabinet members (including National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, former director of Chevron, and Commerce Secretary Donald Evans, former head of Tom Brown Inc.) would affect their judgment on energy policy.[112] None of these officials, however, were in a position to benefit from energy policy decisions;[citation needed] all of the relationships had been severed before taking office.

    2008 Republican Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin said "We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources".[113


    Is all this the soviet propaganda?
     
  14. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    Yes. It's called a red herring.

    None of those people you mention are energy policy makers, and none of them hold the keys to war. Sarah Palin was on the right track with her statement, "in many ways" says she, but you're taking a single sentence and extrapolating an entire national policy from it. Bravo. You win the Soviet Era Propaganda Award of the Year.

    It's really not worth it to go into the complexities of American motivations with you. I had written more, but deleted it.
     
  15. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Right? He is not even trying. I mean sighting BP and not knowing what the B stands for but pushing that as an American agenda. It's really not worth it. He believes this stuff like the Pope believes in Jesus.
     
  16. Stiofan

    Stiofan Master Po

    Really, quoting the socialist anti-American BBC on anything shows a lack of credibility right from the start.
     
  17. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Not really just BBC but Gregory Palast. The guy is a foaming at the mouth US basher.
     
  18. Arc

    Arc Full Member


    It's not all propaganda, it's WIKIPEDIA! It is also ironic that BP, British Petroleum, who is not only British but THE most dishonest and reckless major oil company in the world by far "won" the contract for the largest oil minefield in Iraq.

    Alan Greenspan will eventually be judged by history as the most influential buffoon in the history of US financial markets and policy. The guy was both a crook and wrong about all most everything. (It is kind of a tradition for the Chairman of the FED but Alan took it to a new level.) This is the man who said derivatives don't need regulation even if they do contain an inherent tradition of fraud, deceit, and dishonesty. He justified his statement by saying the rise and fall of prices would in essence self-regulate so no former regulation or oversight was necessary.
     
  19. cmhbob

    cmhbob Did...did I do that? Staff Member

    Someone tell me what an oil minefield is?
     
  20. Andrey

    Andrey A man who sold the world

    I clearly understand that the interests of B and U and vector of foreign affairs are very close :)
     

Share This Page