Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,757 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    Sisko
    Registered Users Posts: 2,910 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,757 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #35
    JONJO THE MISER
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 12,333 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #36
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Way to get Gadaffi his support back if this happens


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #38
    AskMyChocolate
    Registered Users Posts: 2,312 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    AskMyChocolate
    Registered Users Posts: 2,312 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,240 Mod ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #41
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,568 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,576 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #44
    nacho libre
    Registered Users Posts: 16,647 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


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


  • Options
    #45
    Jimmy Garlic
    Registered Users Posts: 4,349 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    nacho libre
    Registered Users Posts: 16,647 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    Has anyone here read Shake Hands with the Devil?


  • Options
    #47
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,568 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    Sisko
    Registered Users Posts: 2,910 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #49
    Adamisconfused
    Registered Users Posts: 268 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #50
    TheRevolution
    Closed Accounts Posts: 452 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #51
    TheRevolution
    Closed Accounts Posts: 452 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


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

    For a lad who spends 99% of his time spewing rhetoric on these very boards that is rich indeed.


  • Options
    #53
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,757 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Jimmy Garlic wrote: »
    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.
    Theres an implication in there somewhere that the US simply decided to destablise the Libyan government so it could invade it? And what of Tunisia? Egypt?

    The Conspiracy Theroies Forum can be found in the Soc Category of Boards.ie
    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.
    No I don't. I don't have to respond to people that view the world sphere in such a narrow spectrum. It's not a black and white Good vs. Evil world. If they understand that: Great. If not, I have no time to humor them.

    You might kill your neighbour in an emotional fit of rage, but countries don't invade other countries in a fit of emotional rage. There is cold hard logic and analysis of tactics, strategies, pros, cons, projections of outcomes and the whole 11 yards that go into the consideration of whether you really want to try and start some **** up.
    Also only one word is needed when talking about the US not invading NK. China.
    Thats one of the Words, but there are many. And they are all typically required when discussing North Korea.
    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.
    There's that echo again.

    If you want to go take an in depth analysis of how the US got into Iraq and why, do some research. Pick up a book. Wikipedia for ****s sake or the Woodward book, Plan of Attack I think its called. At least so you have a factual foundation to base your view on and can debate through Logos, and not simply Pathos.
    Adamisconfused wrote: »
    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.

    That may be the best response I've heard and I respect you actually basing a summation on some facts and analysis. Actually a very smart point you've made there. You are right and I absolutely agree that could be a motive for NATO intervention. We'll have to watch though. Like you said it's not just the US consuming Oil, its the West. Most of which, coincidentally, are member-states of NATO. Excellent point.


  • Options
    #54
    pvt6zh395dqbrj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 183 ✭✭pvt6zh395dqbrj


    Here is my anti Gadaffi Protest poem

    Gadaffi, you are not sacred
    You sleep with the eyes of a million dreams
    Your people, that seek not to be sought
    And yet, you don't spare a moments cause
    Your cathedral is a palace
    And you shake your bones at the trees
    Gadaffi, this is my message
    For you, not unlike those around.


  • Options
    #55
    enfant terrible
    Registered Users Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭enfant terrible


    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.

    They need to start stealing a lot of the Iraqis oil soon if there going to pay for the cost of the invasion.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html

    3 trillion dollars worth, how many barrels is that.


  • Options
    #56
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,757 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    about 300 billion barrels, give or take. Which, interestingly enough, Iraq is estimate to have, with surplus to spare

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Iraq

    You have to also bear in mind that after the invasion of Kuwait, we never "really" left Iraq.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_688
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Southern_Watch
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northern_Watch
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox

    etc.

    To be fair the $3 Trillion figure may not even include the Gulf War, No-Fly Zone operations, or all of the other subsequent expenses of Iraq since the 90s. If it was simply for oil it would have been done a long time ago, wouldn't you think?


  • Options
    #57
    NeedaNewName
    Closed Accounts Posts: 409 ✭✭NeedaNewName


    Is there any evidence of all these atrocities been carried out in Libya?


  • Options
    #58
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,576 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


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

    What the fcuk is wrong with that pal?

    when you are shivering in a -5 winter, when your job, if you actually has one, is gone because of oil problems, when a litre costs €25.00, and when an economic winter blankets your country, then you might have a different attitude.


  • Options
    #59
    PK2008
    Registered Users Posts: 2,219 ✭✭✭PK2008


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    What the fcuk is wrong with that pal?

    when you are shivering in a -5 winter, when your job, if you actually has one, is gone because of oil problems, when a litre costs €25.00, and when an economic winter blankets your country, then you might have a different attitude.

    Say something about poo...


  • Options
    #60
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,576 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    PK2008 wrote: »
    Say something about poo...

    And the shitters are all iced up and the pipes burst,cistern frozen, and you are trying to back out a coil in an ice-box.

    Oil supply has to be protected .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    enfant terrible
    Registered Users Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭enfant terrible


    Overheal wrote: »
    about 300 billion barrels, give or take. Which, interestingly enough, Iraq is estimate to have, with surplus to spare

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Iraq

    You have to also bear in mind that after the invasion of Kuwait, we never "really" left Iraq.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_688
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Southern_Watch
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northern_Watch
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox

    etc.

    To be fair the $3 Trillion figure may not even include the Gulf War, No-Fly Zone operations, or all of the other subsequent expenses of Iraq since the 90s. If it was simply for oil it would have been done a long time ago, wouldn't you think?

    Yes that was the point I was making.


Advertisement