It is now only a matter of time before NATO go into Libya

bobblepuzzle

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2011/03/02/bts.clinton.libya.cnn

Military action is inevitable at this point. Would you agree with it? The Americans are leading the assault....

fudgie101

Gadaffi has a small willy

MidlandsM

fudgie101 wrote: »

Gadaffi has a small willy

and lots of oil, which is why the yanks want to go in.

strokemyclover

Damn! I was hoping Tony Blair's charming english gentleman's wit would win them over in his role as UN Middle East Envoy

bobblepuzzle

MidlandsM wrote: »

and lots of oil, which is why the yanks want to go in.

They will be protecting their interest obviously, but so will every other country that gets oil from there

Bykobap

Whats the price of the pint of lager / litre of petrol in Libya?

Badgermonkey

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

Military action is inevitable at this point.

Bit of a leap there no?

Captain_Generic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFERPDn3i0o

fudgie101

Gadaffi uses his oil on small willy!

bobblepuzzle

Just to add.... NO COUNTRY goes to war unless there is something in it for them, not even just to help the locals from being slaughtered... that is the harsh reallity

bobblepuzzle

Badgermonkey wrote: »

Bit of a leap there no?

trust me, its on its way :eek:

bobblepuzzle

To enforce the proposed no-fly zone, military strikes are necessary to wipe out air defence assets in Libya

Sisko

In fairness, the guy is bombing his own people. This needs to stop, if all the correct legal steps are taken then I certainly will support action been taken.

Anyone with any intelligence knows the war in iraq was over oil and was an illegal war at that.

But this is a totally different situation. Personally I want to see more action from the European powers. The UK is doing a lot of talk alright but they actually lack aircraft carriers at the moment, this is where other european powers should come into play.

Would also like to see some arab countries working together with the west on this. This needs to be a united effort to stop gaddafi's slaughter of his own people.

Lastly , military action should only take place is its going to lead to LESS life loss compared to waiting it out.

ascanbe

Can't see Gadaffi duck out of this one..

TheRevolution

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

Just to add.... NO COUNTRY goes to war unless there is something in it for them, not even just to help the locals from being slaughtered... that is the harsh reallity

What was the benefit from Yugoslavia?

rockmongrel

Didn't Cameron want to send in troops, but the French and Americans disagreed, so he changed his mind?

Rented Mule

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

They will be protecting their interest obviously, but so will every other country that gets oil from there

I believe that Ireland gets a very large chunk of it's petrol from Libya.

bobblepuzzle

Rented Mule wrote: »

I believe that Ireland gets a very large chunk of it's petrol from Libya.

Yeh but we are "neutral"

bobblepuzzle

TheRevolution wrote: »

What was the benefit from Yugoslavia?

That was the UN....

TheRevolution

Sisko wrote: »

Anyone with any intelligence knows the war in iraq was over oil and was an illegal war at that.

The Iraq was not over oil. If it was over oil then why did Bush Snr and Cheeney stop short in 1991? I'm afraid it was because they genuinely believed that Sadaam Hussein had WMD (largely because they supplied them to him during the Iran-Iraq war) and received misleading intelligence from the Israeli's that Sadaam was planning to use WMD on America. War is not in the oil companies interests suprisingly because it reminds governments of the need to wean themselves off the product and to stop relying on middle-east oil in particular as it exposes them to weakness. The oil companies were likely very aware that the Iraq war could have been a failure and that they might have lost any contracts they had with Sadaam and they would not want to jeaprodize this considering how many hundreds of billions there is to be lost. The new Iraqi government kept the same deals with the oil companies.

galwayrush

Dammit, if only Libya had loaned us those billions, we wouldn't have to pay them back.

TheRevolution

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

That was the UN....

Is the UN not made up of countries?

bobblepuzzle

TheRevolution wrote: »

Is the UN not made up of countries?

It has a different agenda, and fails at it

Lirange

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

That was the UN....

Were those UN planes that bombed Belgrade during the Kosovo crisis?

bobblepuzzle

Lirange wrote: »

Were those UN planes that bombed Belgrade during the Kosovo crisis?

no, that was NATO

Captain Chaos

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

Yeh but we are "neutral"

I know you said that in jest.

I hate when people use that line like it's actually true. It's not. A neutral country is one that has the ability to fully defend all it's airspace, sea lanes and land mass from any major force of action for a basic start.

We do not have this ability at all. We are politically neutral and that's about it, we will say yes to whoever is shaking the biggest stick around us at the time.

Switzerland, a real neutral country does have the capability of fully defending it's airspace and land mass from hostel intent.

tigger123

I don't think the US will go storming in, the whole political landscape is changing in the Middle East and no-one really knows which way it's gonna turn out. If the US charge in they will only further damage their reputation in the eyes of these new governments which are forming/yet to be formed. I'd say they'll push for NATO.

Having said that though, if NATO go in too soon they may end up separating two warring factions, and we all know that could be protracted for years (just like Norn Iron!). They may be pragmatic and let the uprising sort itself out and then offer aid. Not the most ethical thing to do though.

partyatmygaff

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Switzerland, a real neutral country does have the capability of fully defending it's airspace and land mass from hostel intent.

Those Swiss and their luxury accommodation...

Son Of A Vidic

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

It has a different agenda, and fails at it

Of course it's the permanent members on the UN Security Council that runs the UN. They dictate according to the agenda that suits them. This privileged club has undermined the UN since it's inception, through their little power plays and vetoes.

General General

TheRevolution wrote: »

What was the benefit from Yugoslavia?

US got airbases, iirc.

el oh el

TheRevolution wrote: »

What was the benefit from Yugoslavia?

by supporting kosovo the US proved to the world they werent anti-muslim? at least thats what some kosovoan tried to explain to me in broken german, didnt quite get the whole thing...

Overheal

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2011/03/02/bts.clinton.libya.cnn

Military action is inevitable at this point. Would you agree with it? The Americans are leading the assault....

Dont make me throw something at you.

For one thing Im surprised as I never expected NATO would take the action. However, if it happens this is a Humanitarian Intervention. And one I approve of.

Furthermore for wanting to throw something at you, just last week we had a bunch of bitching and moaning in this forum that the US wasn't doing anything. So I don't want to hear bitching and moaning that the US, as part of NATO, is planning to do something. Again: I don't see Ireland getting out there to offer aid or Humanitarian work.

Sisko

TheRevolution wrote: »

The Iraq was not over oil. If it was over oil then why did Bush Snr and Cheeney stop short in 1991? I'm afraid it was because they genuinely believed that Sadaam Hussein had WMD

My god....

Wake up ffs.

The 2003 iraq war will go down in history as a war for resources and control over a region.

WMD crap was pure BS, everyone knows this. North Korea was building them and they didn't invade them did they? They sat back and let them build the wmds.

It was a completely illegal war and will go down in history as such. Open your damn eyes.

Overheal

Theres a lot more to it than saying "well they didnt invade DPRK" which is a completely different theatre, with completely different considerations. Even without the WMDs, an invasion of DPRK would be an absolute nightmare.

North Korea has the fourth-largest army in the world, at an estimated 1.21 million armed personnel, with about 20% of men aged 17–54 in the regular armed forces.[85] North Korea has the highest percentage of military personnel per capita of any nation in the world, with approximately one enlisted soldier for every 25 citizens.[86]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea#Military

JONJO THE MISER

galwayrush wrote: »

Dammit, if only Libya had loaned us those billions, we wouldn't have to pay them back.

Could you imagine, we have nothing but bad luck.

Wolfe Tone

Way to get Gadaffi his support back if this happens

Einhard

Sisko wrote: »

My god....

Wake up ffs.

The 2003 iraq war will go down in history as a war for resources and control over a region.

WMD crap was pure BS, everyone knows this. North Korea was building them and they didn't invade them did they? They sat back and let them build the wmds.

It was a completely illegal war and will go down in history as such. Open your damn eyes.

For a war that was all about oil, the US has received very little benefit for all its blood and treasure expended. The Iraqis control their oil fields, and the most recent auctions held went to Chinese and British companies. I think the "it was for oil" argument is pretty lazy actually. If the US wanted to secure oil supplies from Iraq, all they had to do was cosset Saddam, and cosy up to him. Instead, you'd have us believe that they spent hundreds of billions to secure a resource which they could have more adequately secured by allying themselves with Saddam. Doesn't make much sense to me.

AskMyChocolate

Overheal wrote: »

Dont make me throw something at you.

For one thing Im surprised as I never expected NATO would take the action. However, if it happens this is a Humanitarian Intervention. And one I approve of.

Furthermore for wanting to throw something at you, just last week we had a bunch of bitching and moaning in this forum that the US wasn't doing anything. So I don't want to hear bitching and moaning that the US, as part of NATO, is planning to do something. Again: I don't see Ireland getting out there to offer aid or Humanitarian work.

Jaysus chief, little harsh there. The Irish Defence Forces' record when it comes to peacekeeping with the UN is exemplary. Chad, Lebanon etc. And on a per capita basis, the amount of Irish voluntary aid and humanitarian workers working with NGOs all over the world is phenomenal.

AskMyChocolate

Einhard wrote: »

For a war that was all about oil, the US has received very little benefit for all its blood and treasure expended. The Iraqis control their oil fields, and the most recent auctions held went to Chinese and British companies. I think the "it was for oil" argument is pretty lazy actually. If the US wanted to secure oil supplies from Iraq, all they had to do was cosset Saddam, and cosy up to him. Instead, you'd have us believe that they spent hundreds of billions to secure a resource which they could have more adequately secured by allying themselves with Saddam. Doesn't make much sense to me.

It was never about oil. Like our bank bail-out, it was about diverting as much public money as possible into well-connected private pockets. Haliburton, Carlyle group etc.

Manic Moran

Just to add.... NO COUNTRY goes to war unless there is something in it for them, not even just to help the locals from being slaughtered... that is the harsh reallity

This is true. But even simply 'Good PR' can be a benefit. The Irish don't send troops on UN missions just for the heck of it either.

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

That was the UN....

Depends on what operation. Allied Force (the Kosovo op) was not sanctioned by the UN, and received some criticism for it, including from the UN Secretary General.

NTM

Biggins

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2011/03/02/bts.clinton.libya.cnn

Military action is inevitable at this point. Would you agree with it? The Americans are leading the assault....

Taking their bloody time!
According to the English Times yesterday morning (and this was before the later towns air bombed yesterday!) the death toll at the direct/indirect hands of Gadaffi, is over 6,000.

Typical usual countries delaying and delaying.
All they are worried about is the oil.

FlutterinBantam

Einhard wrote: »

For a war that was all about oil, the US has received very little benefit for all its blood and treasure expended. The Iraqis control their oil fields, and the most recent auctions held went to Chinese and British companies. I think the "it was for oil" argument is pretty lazy actually. If the US wanted to secure oil supplies from Iraq, all they had to do was cosset Saddam, and cosy up to him. Instead, you'd have us believe that they spent hundreds of billions to secure a resource which they could have more adequately secured by allying themselves with Saddam. Doesn't make much sense to me.

me neither,however that sort of stuff never bothered the lads who just want to spew out the auld rhetoric.

Einhard

Biggins wrote: »

Typical usual countries delaying and delaying.
All they are worried about is the oil.

I think it's slightly more complicated than that.

nacho libre

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Gadaffi-accepts-Chavez-s-mediation-offer/Article1-668961.aspx

Jimmy Garlic

Destabilise a country, let it descend into anarchy then invade under the pretence of humanitarian aid, genius. As if the US gives a flying f*ck about Libyans.

nacho libre

Has anyone here read Shake Hands with the Devil?

Biggins

Einhard wrote: »

I think it's slightly more complicated than that.

O' for sure definitely, I agree but my point was that they tend to look at the oil interest first a lot of the time instead of sadly the human cost.

Sisko

Overheal wrote: »

Theres a lot more to it than saying "well they didnt invade DPRK" which is a completely different theatre, with completely different considerations.

Of course there is but when talking to people who believe the war in iraq was literally about WMD;s and American being the good guys and saving the day, you have to give such examples.

Also only one word is needed when talking about the US not invading NK. China.

Einhard wrote: »

I think the "it was for oil" argument is pretty lazy actually.

As opposed to the 'magic WMD's, saddam was behind 9/11, dem derr Ay-rabs be evil' argument?

It was an illegal war waged to secure US interests in the region, which required a vast amount of out right lying and manipulation to get going and in the end they just broke all the rules and did it anyway.

Adamisconfused

Considering the US uses twenty million barrels of oil every day, they, and the the rest of the western world, won't be too happy if oil shoots up to $200 a barrel, which is a perfectly reasonable target. Double what it is now. That's an extra two billion dollars being drained from their economy every single day which has an effect on, well, everything. The world runs on the stuff.
This is a country that is already suffering inflation due to their reckless dollar printing. Business is already struggling.

TheRevolution

Sisko wrote: »

My god....

Wake up ffs.

The 2003 iraq war will go down in history as a war for resources and control over a region.

WMD crap was pure BS, everyone knows this. North Korea was building them and they didn't invade them did they? They sat back and let them build the wmds.

It was a completely illegal war and will go down in history as such. Open your damn eyes.

LOL. Do a bit of actual reading. The US genuinely did believe that there was WMD in Iraq. They were further pressured by the Israeli lobby in America to take action and completely overexagerated Mossad reports. Most of the subsequent oil contracts went to China and the Iraqi government has full control over the oil fields. Why on earth would the US allow the most lucrative oil contracts to go to their biggest competitor if it was about oil.

Maybe you should open your eyes.

TheRevolution

Sisko wrote: »

Of course there is but when talking to people who believe the war in iraq was literally about WMD;s and American being the good guys and saving the day, you have to give such examples.

Also only one word is needed when talking about the US not invading NK. China.



As opposed to the 'magic WMD's, saddam was behind 9/11, dem derr Ay-rabs be evil' argument?

It was an illegal war waged to secure US interests in the region, which required a vast amount of out right lying and manipulation to get going and in the end they just broke all the rules and did it anyway.

Sigh. The US WERE misled. No one is saying the US is good or can do no wrong but on Iraq they were definitely misled. Groups like AIPAC and the Anti-Defamation League as well as intelligence agencies such as GID (Saudi Arabia) and Mossad saw an opportunity to great rid of an enemy in the region and misled and completely misdirected the American government. There is also evidence that Al-Zawhari knowingly gave the impression that Sadaam was supporting Al-Qaeda with the intention of stretching America's resources in another conflict in the region and as such achieving Al-Qaeda's aims of "bleeding the enemy" through overuse of resources just like the Mujahdeen did with the USSR.

It's pointless arguing with you though because you are evidently VERY misinformed. The average joe on the street will say "IT WAS ABOUT OIL" but if you were to ask anyone who has actually studied the conflict it was quite clear that it was not about oil and this is reflected in the situation of Iraq's oil today.

Try not to believe everything YOU hear.