U.S. and Allies Strike Libya - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-29-2011, 12:13 PM   #106
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,420
Local Time: 05:37 AM
last night proved without a shadow of a doubt what i already knew... obama is just another politician who's more than capable of looking us in the eye and lying right to our face. he considers the american people stupid, largely because a lot of us are, and will believe whatever he says if he says it in a sincere enough way.

but then again i knew this when i voted for him.

this isn't iraq. we aren't going to tripoli. the end goals are not the same. but the reasons behind it? yea... exactly the same. if libya didn't have lots and lots of oil, we wouldn't be doing this. syria is right next to iraq. a rush of refugees flooding over the borders into iraq would be an issue, just like refugees heading into egypt would be. syria doesn't have a shit ton of oil. they've only got a little bit of oil. we won't be going to syria.
__________________

__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 12:41 PM   #107
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 04:37 AM
Devil's advocate

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
This is what President Obama said in 2007-so what was the actual or imminent threat to the US this time?
It might be perhaps a bit unfair to compare Iran and Libya as like circumstances. Given the spectre of Iraq that clouded any discussion of Iran at the time, I presume Obama meant that unilateral military intervention may be permissible in the case of an actual or imminent threat to the US, and given the spectre of Iraq that was clouding discussion of Iran at the time, I think it's safe to say that the type of military intervention being hypothetically discussed would be more resource intensive than the operation in Libya.

In the case of Libya, the U.S. wasn't even the chief proponent of military intervention, is only one member of a fairly broad coalition, backed even by the Arab League (doubt you'd get that for a military intervention in Iran), and is essentially providing a support role.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 01:11 PM   #108
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 04:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
but then again i knew this when i voted for him.
This is what I keep coming back to.

In my book, he still has done more good than bad in his first two years. And, that is the best I have to go by. (Wall Street and top income earners tax cuts still piss me off)


Not that Libya couldn't take a shit-turn into quagmirehood, but for kudos to Obama for making sure the U.N. and NATO have a healthy portion of the responsibility.
__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 01:56 PM   #109
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,428
Local Time: 02:37 AM
NYTimes:
Quote:
LONDON — Leaders of the four dozen countries and international organizations meeting here on Tuesday made it clear that the NATO-led military operation in Libya would end only with the removal of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, even though that is not the stated aim of the United Nations resolution authorizing it.
oh, who could have known?

Apparently the big mistake in Iraq was sending ground troops.
__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 02:17 PM   #110
Refugee
 
The_Pac_Mule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,342
Local Time: 05:37 AM
The U.S. gets less than 2% of its oil from Libya, I believe.



Now Britain France and Italy on the other hand... I can see a case to be made for them.


What I don't get though is that if this is indeed about oil, why would they want to help the opposition out, who are essentially creating more chaos in the country? Without intervention, the rebels would have been crushed and the status quo would stay the same. I assume they're riding on a pro-western government coming to power (more oil, better prices) but that's a BIG risk they're taking.


I think different countries are in it for different reasons. Europe = oil, U.S. = protection of civilians/not to look bad, Arab League/Arab countries = regional stability, protection of Muslims and the fact that Gaddahfi is just as much an infidel as we are.
__________________
The_Pac_Mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 03:23 PM   #111
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,420
Local Time: 05:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
The U.S. gets less than 2% of its oil from Libya, I believe.



Now Britain France and Italy on the other hand... I can see a case to be made for them.


What I don't get though is that if this is indeed about oil, why would they want to help the opposition out, who are essentially creating more chaos in the country? Without intervention, the rebels would have been crushed and the status quo would stay the same. I assume they're riding on a pro-western government coming to power (more oil, better prices) but that's a BIG risk they're taking.


I think different countries are in it for different reasons. Europe = oil, U.S. = protection of civilians/not to look bad, Arab League/Arab countries = regional stability, protection of Muslims and the fact that Gaddahfi is just as much an infidel as we are.
come on... the US was pressured into getting involved in this by europe. they were not the ones who were out in front.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 08:54 PM   #112
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 05:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
last night proved without a shadow of a doubt what i already knew... obama is just another politician who's more than capable of looking us in the eye and lying right to our face. he considers the american people stupid, largely because a lot of us are, and will believe whatever he says if he says it in a sincere enough way.

but then again i knew this when i voted for him.

this isn't iraq. we aren't going to tripoli. the end goals are not the same. but the reasons behind it? yea... exactly the same. if libya didn't have lots and lots of oil, we wouldn't be doing this. syria is right next to iraq. a rush of refugees flooding over the borders into iraq would be an issue, just like refugees heading into egypt would be. syria doesn't have a shit ton of oil. they've only got a little bit of oil. we won't be going to syria.



We live in a political world
Love don’t have any place
We’re living in times where men commit crimes
And crime don’t have a face

We live in a political world
Icicles hanging down
Wedding bells ring and angels sing
Clouds cover up the ground

We live in a political world
Wisdom is thrown into jail
It rots in a cell, is misguided as hell
Leaving no one to pick up a trail


~Bob Dylan
__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 09:29 PM   #113
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 08:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
if libya didn't have lots and lots of oil, we wouldn't be doing this.
I think your skepticism of Obama's motives are warranted, however my view on this statement is that there is way too much cynicism involved.
I think he was mostly sincere in explaining the intervention in Libya. What you have there is a perfect storm of international support, heartfelt pleas from the Libyan people (military and civil), and nearly unprecedented support from the Arab League.

In my opinion, there is absolutely no way he would have involved America in this if oil was the only, or even primary, consideration.
__________________
Basstrap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 07:26 AM   #114
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,420
Local Time: 05:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basstrap

I think your skepticism of Obama's motives are warranted, however my view on this statement is that there is way too much cynicism involved.
I think he was mostly sincere in explaining the intervention in Libya. What you have there is a perfect storm of international support, heartfelt pleas from the Libyan people (military and civil), and nearly unprecedented support from the Arab League.

In my opinion, there is absolutely no way he would have involved America in this if oil was the only, or even primary, consideration.
Disagree.

So we'll be going to these other countries next then, right? No?
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 08:30 AM   #115
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 11:37 AM
It's only oil, and Libya is an easy target politically and militarily. You need months to years to get any action on humanitarian grounds. That's only ever happened once or twice ever, and the action is usually too little, too late. Deliberately restrained, hugely reluctant. Way too late. This kind of fast turnaround? Humanitarian concerns are there, sure, but it is in no way why this is being done. It is entirely about the oil. It means nothing to the US, but means a lot to European countries, particularly the UK, who have significant investments there. And the US owes those countries, big time. After Afghanistan and Iraq, the least the US can do is stick its neck out just an inch for especially the UK.

Politically, 'humanitarian' gets them in domestically, and the fact that everyone hates Gaddafi gets them in internationally. But it was the threat of a grinding, messy civil war, a conflict that had already shut down the oilfields, sending the tens of thousands of people who work on them already scattering for the borders and the airports, with the possibility of them even sliding out of the hands of those overseas with the ownership or leasing and becoming a tool in a war, or nationalised or something... nup. Can't wait for it to get too messy, or drag on too long, where something naked like a pure protection-of-oil-fields plan might be necessary. Get in now under the cover of "Can't stand by and watch another Rwanda happen!" The good news? Pretty easy country to crack, militarily. Not much of a fight, and most of the hard work is done by others on the ground. They just want it to settle. They wouldn't really care who is coming in to take charge, just as long as it settles. Do what they can to get a rebel win, or set them up for one. Send the workers back in, fire up the oilfields. All good.

And the unanimous Arab League vote cleared the path by giving it legitimacy, but it just shows up how bullshit all of this is. Half those countries turned around and shot up their own protesters the very next day. Humanitarian concerns? Ha ha, the what now? Oh, see the hated Gaddafi take a few cruise missiles? Yay! Would they vote the same way against anyone else? Certainly not.

And so this draws a line in the sand? Libya is the example to the rest of the Middle East (and the world?) telling them how far is too far? Really? My guess is that the line is here for Libya (Dickhead!), but it will be waaay over there for someone like Iran (jeez, a proper fight, yikes!), and waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over there for someone like Saudi Arabia (Mon cherie amour! Chin up tiger!)
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 01:22 PM   #116
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 05:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basstrap View Post
and nearly unprecedented support from the Arab League.

this. when you are a president trying to repair the damage done by 8 years of unilateralist drunken sailors wrecking havoc in the Muslim world, it's difficult to underestimate the importance of getting the Arab League on board for something (especially yet another adventure in the desert).
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 03:51 PM   #117
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,420
Local Time: 05:37 AM
I defended Iraq in the beginning... largely out of a post 9/11 respect for how W handled the immediate aftermath of that day. I was wrong. Dead wrong. We never should have gone there.

We're currently going dead ass broke. We already have two wars, only one of which carries any sort of legitimacy. Even if this was strictly for humanitarian reasons, which I don't believe for a second, we shouldn't be involved.

This is a time where we should be saying to the international community "hey... guys... we're gonna sit this one out. We've got our own shit to deal with. We'll be back in a few, but yea... you're on your own for a few years. Try anything stupid and we'll fucking stomp you out, but yea... peace out. See ya when we see ya."
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 04:24 PM   #118
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 04:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
This is a time where we should be saying to the international community "hey... guys... we're gonna sit this one out. We've got our own shit to deal with. We'll be back in a few, but yea... you're on your own for a few years. Try anything stupid and we'll fucking stomp you out, but yea... peace out. See ya when we see ya."
Obama could (he fucking won't), but he could say, "Hey, you know all of you companies that have business in Libya, yeah, we're gonna need you to cough up a little to cover this. Call it a 'war' tax. I'm looking at you, oil companies. You're for peace, patriotism and humanitarian causes, right?"

Make it like the Spanish-American War tax that lasted around 100 years.
__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 06:36 PM   #119
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,428
Local Time: 02:37 AM
Link

Quote:
Update: Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), who asked Clinton about the War Powers Act during a classified briefing said Clinton and the administration are sidestepping the measure's provisions giving Congress the ability to put a 60-day time limit on any military action.

"They are not committed to following the important part of the War Powers Act," he told TPM in a phone interview. "She said they are certainly willing to send reports [to us] and if they issue a press release, they'll send that to us too."

The White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a classified briefing to House members Wednesday afternoon.
There's something toxic in D.C.
__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 06:46 PM   #120
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 05:37 AM
No matter how much or how little oil the US gets from Libya it is still increasing gas prices-which has a domino effect in so many other aspects of the economy. A poll just came out today talking about how people are increasingly pessimistic about the economy- because of gas prices and food prices and other prices going up.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com