|
Boy I wish I could be naive too. Yes, we are in libya because of all the attrocities going on. Its not anything to do with exploiting the natural resources of a soverign nation again. I'm not advocating what gaddafi has done, but the rebels just setup the fastest national bank in the history of the world.
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 12:06 |
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Civil wars don't get fought with hugs and positive thinking, they need money. Yeah, I HOPE we're part of the rebuilding efforts in post-war Libya. Granted it won't all be for good (corporations will want to go in there and set things up to interest themselves) but this isn't Sims, where you get money and a catalogue and you just have to decide where everything goes. Rebuilding a country is hard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
slay0r691 posted:Boy I wish I could be naive too. Yes, we are in libya because of all the attrocities going on. Its not anything to do with exploiting the natural resources of a soverign nation again. I'm not advocating what gaddafi has done, but the rebels just setup the fastest national bank in the history of the world. Because everything is always about one thing only, nothing is ever about a number of different issues, just one thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 19:02
|
|
|
I am as cynical as they come but setting up organs of state is highly important for rebellions so that they can more credibly claim they are in fact a state and then collect diplomatic support in the way of being recognized and funded etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 19:04
|
|
|
Baddog posted:Your entire post is just  No one is arguing that that CQ or Saddam aren't shitheads. Also thanks for the random  personal attacks. There is a huge loving difference between 1) a UN/World backed NFZ/Aerial attack enabling a popular uprising/preventing them from being crushed (Libya) in the face of extreme violence being perpetuated against civilians by the military and 2) fabricating a cassus belli with very little international support (apart from allies you can arm twist or bribe) into running in and imposing regime change via military force without any kind of civilian uprising or current humanitarian crisis. If you can't understand how these two interventions are so extremely different due to your own bias then there's really nothing more to say.
Nuclearmonkee fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Mar 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 19:05
|
|
|
It is about one thing only, exploitation of other countries in whatever way benefits the west most. There's a reason we ignored rowanda and the sudanese genocide, because there's no benefit for us. Here in libya there is the potential to have access to more oil, and to install another central bank in a country who didn't play ball with the rest of the global banking system. Its so obvious, but the western media constantly plays into the emotions of gullible americans. Did you hear lindey lohan is changing her name?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 19:07
|
|
|
slay0r691 posted:It is about one thing only, exploitation of other countries in whatever way benefits the west most. There's a reason we ignored rowanda and the sudanese genocide, because there's no benefit for us. Here in libya there is the potential to have access to more oil, and to install another central bank in a country who didn't play ball with the rest of the global banking system. Its so obvious, but the western media constantly plays into the emotions of gullible americans. Did you hear lindey lohan is changing her name? At the root of it, most likely. If Libya didn't have significant oil wealth and as a result, some level of international importance, no one would have probably gotten involved or given a poo poo beyond us bleeding heart liberals going all  over images of civilians being massacred while the west did nothing.However, if your only interest was that THE OIL MUST FLOW, the easiest way to have that happen would have been to simply let CQ finish crushing the rebels and resume business as normal. His forces were literally miles away from Benghazi when the air strikes started and turned this thing around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
slay0r691 posted:There's a reason we ignored rowanda and the sudanese genocide, because there's no benefit for us. Here in libya there is the potential to have access to more oil, and to install another central bank in a country who didn't play ball with the rest of the global banking system Uhh...Sudan actually has a huge oil deposit. It's even located mainly in the ethnically-distinct area the genocide was taking place in, so if securing resources was actually that much of a goal, a seperate puppet-state could have been set up pretty easily.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 19:11
|
|
|
slay0r691 posted:It is about one thing only, exploitation of other countries in whatever way benefits the west most. There's a reason we ignored rowanda and the sudanese genocide, because there's no benefit for us. Here in libya there is the potential to have access to more oil, and to install another central bank in a country who didn't play ball with the rest of the global banking system. Its so obvious, but the western media constantly plays into the emotions of gullible americans. Did you hear lindey lohan is changing her name? Libya was already selling its oil to the west. Also Libya already had a central bank. Take those facts to them and get back to us when whomever you're borrowing your talking points from responds. farraday fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Mar 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 19:11
|
|
|
If it was about securing oil/money and nothing else, then the most expedient course of action would have been to pat Gaddafi on the back and tell him to hurry up and finish with those rebels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 19:19
|
|
|
slay0r691 posted:It is about one thing only, exploitation of other countries in whatever way benefits the west most. As a general rule of thumb anyone who reduces hugely complex events to "one thing only" isn't just wrong, but stupid as all hell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 19:24
|
|
|
Pureauthor posted:If it was about securing oil/money and nothing else, then the most expedient course of action would have been to pat Gaddafi on the back and tell him to hurry up and finish with those rebels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 19:25
|
|
|
Nill posted:Except that would be political suicide for pretty much any elected government. Not really, all you need to do is not step in. Gadaffi was a few days away from it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 19:26
|
|
|
Its about gaining control over that oil through western backed corporations, not gaddafi ran organizations. Additionally, there's no use for a libyan central bank ran by people loyal to gaddafi, we need on ran by libyan rebels backed by western nations so that they can take out super awesome imf loans to fix the holes left by the tomahawks. I'd really love to stay and chitchat, but typing responses on a droid at work isn't the best use of time. Perhaps ill drop by after work, or perhaps ill go chat with some people about serious topics like the nfl lockout. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 19:27
|
|
|
slay0r691 posted:Its about gaining control over that oil through western backed corporations ??? After the sanctions started getting lifted in 2004 there were lifted a whole bunch of western oil companies, including American ones swooped in pretty drat rapidly and started securing contracts. They hold quite a few at this point. Here's an old article from when it all started going down after the sanction lift. http://articles.latimes.com/2005/oct/03/business/fi-libya3 Nuclearmonkee fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Mar 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 19:32
|
|
|
slay0r691 posted:Its about gaining control over that oil through western backed corporations, not gaddafi ran organizations. Additionally, there's no use for a libyan central bank ran by people loyal to gaddafi, we need on ran by libyan rebels backed by western nations so that they can take out super awesome imf loans to fix the holes left by the tomahawks. I'd really love to stay and chitchat, but typing responses on a droid at work isn't the best use of time. Perhaps ill drop by after work, or perhaps ill go chat with some people about serious topics like the nfl lockout. You realize BP and the Italian national oil company were already in Libya right? Are they not western backed? Keep an eye on that nfl situation for us, we're all really interested in hearing your position on it as you post from your droid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 19:32
|
|
|
slay0r691 posted:Its about gaining control over that oil through western backed corporations, not gaddafi ran organizations. Additionally, there's no use for a libyan central bank ran by people loyal to gaddafi, we need on ran by libyan rebels backed by western nations so that they can take out super awesome imf loans to fix the holes left by the tomahawks. I'd really love to stay and chitchat, but typing responses on a droid at work isn't the best use of time. Perhaps ill drop by after work, or perhaps ill go chat with some people about serious topics like the nfl lockout. You're giving Baddog a run for his money 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 19:32
|
|
|
Use the ignore list; stop responding to obvious retards.dj_clawson posted:(corporations will want to go in there and set things up to interest themselves) So doing nothing would have been in the immediate commercial interests of "big oil". But it would be considered another Rwanda or Bosnia, seriously damaging the popular support of the politicians. Vir fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Mar 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 19:37
|
|
|
Continuing news on Qatar in their continuing effort to lead Absolute Monarchs for Democracy.quote:LibyanDictator: Via @Qahtani Qatari prince orders ships to be sent to rescue Egyptians stranded in #Misrata. #Libya #Feb17 They're really throwing their weight around, which is pretty amazing considering how tiny they are in non-monetary terms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 19:40
|
|
|
Slantedfloors posted:Uhh...Sudan actually has a huge oil deposit. It's even located mainly in the ethnically-distinct area the genocide was taking place in, so if securing resources was actually that much of a goal, a seperate puppet-state could have been set up pretty easily. Spheres of influence. Sudan's regime is backed by the Chinese government, whereas Gaddafi runs what's essentially a pariah state. Despicable human beings only ever get punished for their actions when they aren't strategically important to one of the super-powers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 19:56
|
|
|
Zappatista posted:Spheres of influence. Sudan's regime is backed by the Chinese government, whereas Gaddafi runs what's essentially a pariah state.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 19:58
|
|
|
slay0r691 posted:Boy I wish I could be naive too. Yes, we are in libya because of all the attrocities going on. Its not anything to do with exploiting the natural resources of a soverign nation again. I'm not advocating what gaddafi has done, but the rebels just setup the fastest national bank in the history of the world. Except we're not talking about Bush and Cheney here with disturbing ties to the oil industry or helpful "construction" firms that rebuild everything in Iraq. Obama has no stake in the Middle East besides trying to do better than decades of bad policy, and considering the mess he's left to deal with, he's actually doing decent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 19:58
|
|
|
Vir posted:Hitchens is correct that the US/UK invasion of Iraq was one of the main reasons why Gaddafi surrendered his WMD program and scaled down his support for terrorism. He's also probably right that Saddam Hussein still being in power might have made UN and Arab League support for the Libyan civilians more difficult. But it does not follow that the invasion of Iraq, at the time and the way it was done, was the right thing, which he implies. Yay us!  About loving time if you ask me. Waiting for an "official NATO request" my rear end, there's no such thing unless you show interest to begin with. The government was dragging its feet until it felt somewhat safe that the public was in favor of the intervention. EDIT: Then again, I just read that the unit will not take part in ground assaults. Sigh. Even when this government does something right, it does it half-rear end. Because if that's true, it's the diplomatic equivalent of refusing to help a friend unless they say pretty please with sugar on top. On another note, this will be the first time the Gripen sees action ever, joining the Rafale and Typhoon as another first for this war. It will also be the first active assignment our air force is involved in since Kongo in the 60s. Stroh M.D. fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Mar 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 20:05
|
|
|
Good video of Nic Robinson of CNN in Misarata yesterday: http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2011/03/29/robertson.libya.battle.misrata.cnn
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 20:07
|
|
|
More on Qatarquote:SultanAlQassemi: The Guardian: Contact group established to help monitor the transition in #Libya includes EU, UN, Arab League, African Union & OIC. Knowing the need for an Arab face to this Qatar is really pulling out the stops. At this rate I may even forgive them for winning the World Cup bid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 20:10
|
|
|
Spiky Ooze posted:Except we're not talking about Bush and Cheney here with disturbing ties to the oil industry or helpful "construction" firms that rebuild everything in Iraq. Obama has no stake in the Middle East besides trying to do better than decades of bad policy, and considering the mess he's left to deal with, he's actually doing decent. Hey buddy, what's it like in 2008? Still excited about Obama's plan to shut down Guantanamo and implement a first-world healthcare system? He's reeeaaallly a break from his predecessors, huh? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 20:18
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Good video of Nic Robinson of CNN in Misarata yesterday:
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 20:30
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Hey buddy, what's it like in 2008? Still excited about Obama's plan to shut down Guantanamo and implement a first-world healthcare system? He's reeeaaallly a break from his predecessors, huh? "Obama has made a lot of lovely mistakes and left a lot of promises unfulfilled" and "Obama has capably handled the Libyan situation" are not mutually exclusive statements.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 20:35
|
|
|
"Has capably handled"? You're talking in the past tense, as though this Libya situation is over. "Obama's record is that of either a liar or a weak and timid leader, and this may very well be a predictor of his future performance" is a better way to paraphrase my point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 20:42
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:Your entire post is just 1) If you refer back to the original post I replied to (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3390388&userid=152856#post389792203), someone who was just coming into this blind might not be able to tell which "evil dictator who kills his own people with secret police, military, and mercenary forces" you were referring to. But you were very sure one war was completely bad and one was completely good. That's what I was laughing about. And the fact that Gaddafi is a neophyte compared to what Saddam was. 2) There was a significant civilian uprising in Iraq (one which we actually were trying to protect with almost ten years of an established nofly zone). A nofly zone on its own doesn't do a whole lot, that's why this particular intervention is more like a "everything is fair game except for actually firing a gun while your feet are on the ground" zone, which is going to be increasingly absurd. 3) The years of UN sanctions on Iraq were indeed causing a humanitarian crisis (more like Saddam was starving his own people using the UN as an excuse, but still). 4) People only remember the WMD argument/lie because that was the most compelling, and what was used to try to get UN backing, but there were many other reasons as well. 5) Most people thought that Iraq (and afghanistan) would be over very quickly as the "rebel forces" in each would quickly assume responsibility and control. That hasn't been the case, and we haven't been able to get out without being responsible for even more war/death. By intervening in Libya, even just by air, I think we have now taken moral responsibility for the outcome there, and while I hope that we will not be drawn in like we have elsewhere, if things go badly, I think we will be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 20:52
|
|
|
Just because Obama is the president doesn't mean he gets to make all the rules the way he wants, go learn a little about the US government and realized that as a democracy that these have to be negotiated by EVERYONE and in order to get stuff passed he will have to make concessions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 21:01
|
|
|
Baddog posted:There was a significant civilian uprising in Iraq (one which we actually were trying to protect with almost ten years of an established nofly zone). No there wasn't an uprising in pre-invasion Iraq that even remotely compared to what's happened in Libya. The uprising in Libya involved portions of the military and has claimed entire cities and regions of the country prior to any outside intervention. Not really the case with Iraq. Yes there have been Kurds fighting for independence - and not just from Iraq, but also from Turkey (and not because they wanted to replace Saddam with democracy but because they want their own state) - but that had been going on for a long time and the US never gave much of a poo poo about the welfare of Kurds until we were looking for reasons to invade in 03. quote:People only remember the WMD argument/lie because that was the most compelling, and what was used to try to get UN backing, but there were many other reasons as well. Yes other reasons were thrown around but the primary reason for invasion was a supposed danger to the United States. If helping out the Kurds really had anything to do with it, we'd have withdrawn our support from Iraq back when they first started gassing them in the loving 1980's instead of actively helping out Iraq by trying to pin the massacres of Kurds on Iran.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 21:03
|
|
|
Baddog posted:By intervening in Libya, even just by air, I think we have now taken moral responsibility for the outcome there, and while I hope that we will not be drawn in like we have elsewhere, if things go badly, I think we will be. Uh why would we? We kept the no fly zone in Iraq going or 10 years and probably would've kept it going for another 10 years if we didn't have a president hell bent on invading Iraq, and it worked, the northern Kurdistan region of Iraq stayed de facto independent the entire time, and even post invasion was the most stable region of the country. More importantly though, minus the protests held in Iraq a few weeks ago, Iraq and the Iraqi invasion is beyond irrelevant to both the situations currently unfolding in the mid-east as well as any intervention taken by other countries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 21:05
|
|
|
farraday posted:More on Qatar Just to add to this, the rebels are apparently setting up their own, real news station called LibyaTV. It was formed by Libyan ex-pats, and Qatar is the country that's helping them set it up (in Doha I believe).
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 21:15
|
|
|
YorexTheMad posted:"Obama has made a lot of lovely mistakes and left a lot of promises unfulfilled" and "Obama has capably handled the Libyan situation" are not mutually exclusive statements. They are if you have a mind only capable of processing things in black and white.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 21:15
|
|
|
Well, looks like rebels are on the run again, as soon as air strikes let up they get destroyed. Latest reports say they are already all the way back in Brega. Wonder how many died or got captured this time on their ill conceived race to Sirte, I think if Gaddafi does this swift retreat followed by strong counter attack a few more times there won't be anyone left to fight pretty soon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 21:25
|
|
|
I think the more interesting question is why coalition air strikes ceased, or at least were so limited.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 21:36
|
|
|
Freigeist posted:Well, looks like rebels are on the run again, as soon as air strikes let up they get destroyed. Latest reports say they are already all the way back in Brega. How does this even make sense? We're talking about loyalist troops with the morale of a potato getting bombed into the next world every 5 minutes, and a bunch of pissed off revolutionaries. How are they getting rolled so easily?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 21:36
|
|
|
ArchDemon posted:How does this even make sense? We're talking about loyalist troops with the morale of a potato getting bombed into the next world every 5 minutes, and a bunch of pissed off revolutionaries. How are they getting rolled so easily? Lead bullets don't go through tanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 21:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 12:06 |
|
|
ArchDemon posted:How does this even make sense? We're talking about loyalist troops with the morale of a potato getting bombed into the next world every 5 minutes, and a bunch of pissed off revolutionaries. How are they getting rolled so easily?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 21:39
|
|