The War On Libya Is A Mistake.

SafeSurfer

Einhard wrote: »

QUOTE] Why on earth would the West seek then to kill the goose who laid the golden egg, especially when they didn't intervene when Gadaffi was public enemy #1, and funding the bombing of British city centres, and instigating the downing of American airliners?

The US did intervene by bombling Libya in 1986.

HavingCrack

SafeSurfer wrote: »

If you only intervene because you have some ulterior motive in relation to his daughter then yes, it would be hypocritical.

But in the case of Libya I would argue that there is no ulterior motive. Gadaffi has only recently achieved rapapproachment with much of the world following his airline bombings and terrorist funding. The oil has been flowing freely from Libya for several years now. There is no need to start a war to gain access to it? Being a cynic one would say the west could have just let Gadaffi wipe out the rebels and then see the oil start rolling out again? I certainly don't trust Britain, France and the US on most things but I really don't see the ulterior motive in this particular case.

Einhard

HavingCrack wrote: »

Hence why I said about it coming back to bite them in the arse. Their support for tyrants has caused chickens to come home to roost.

I think you might have missed a bit of my argument. While the international community prefers democracies per sae, it has no qualms about dealing with dictators if that's the best option on the table as you correctly point out. However historically speaking the West(in particular the US) has a history of undermining democratic states and installing dictators to further their interests. Guatemala, Honduras, Chile, Colombia, the coup against Chavez in Venezuala recently, Pakistan, Laos etc. All these countries had democratic institutions which were undermined by the West as they were not in western interests. Interestingly if the west was truly interested in spreading democracy why did they not put one into Kuwait after the first Gulf War but instead put in a near absoltue monarchy?

I would argue that democracy was supported in Iraq because of the invasion rather than in spite of it if that makes sense. Parachuting another dictator in after deposing Saddam just wouldn't look good. To be honest, I;m suprised they just didn't come to an agreement with him though. I

Again, I agree with much of what you say, but I think that the reprehensible policy of underming democracies, and preferring puppet dictators, is very much in the past. I also think that, much of the negative reaction to the West is based on that past, rather than current or recent actions. Thus, people will state that America tears down democracies to build up friendly autocracies, and point to Iran as proof, yet completely ignore the current situation in Iraq, and to an extent, Afghanistan. I don;t think that any reasonable person could argue that the regimes in either nation are fawning American sycophants.

Einhard

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The US did intervene by bombling Libya in 1986.

Yes, but it was a limited response to a Libyan sponsered bombing of a Berlin nightclub frequented by American servicemen, rather than an attempt to remove Gadaffi.

I knew you'd bring it up though.:D

Offy

Einhard wrote: »

Well it is the American way. Or do you have evidence that America just steals massive amounts of oil from foreign nations? Even in Iraq, a nation America supposedly invaded for oil and gas, most of the contracts agreed by the Iraqi government have gone to other nations, especially China. The Yanks aren't exactly getting a good return for their investment!!



Ah, but the Krauts haven't forced anything on us!

Evidence? Im not the DPP, I dont require evidence!!!!! As for the Krauts, dont they along with France run Europe? Who benifits most from the bailout?

phosphate

ascanbe wrote: »

I can't believe anyone would approach this question with any degree of cynicism or willingness to question motives. I mean, it's not like past instances would give anyone reason to do so.
The real victims here are those whose sensibilities have been offended by the rabid 'lefties' who would dare entertain the possibility of this intervention, perhaps, not being entirely motivated by 'humanatarian' ideals.

It's not unreasonable to be cynical of these actions.

There are many dictators around the world which the west fully support.

The US have a base in Bahrain which would be critical towards any attack on Iran.

If Bahrain were to achieve a democratic state, they may wish to remove the US base as was done by Rafael Correa in Ecuador.

The US have a sweet deal with the Saudi royal family where most of their oil imports come from.

Yemen is also strategically important to the US so it makes absolutely no sense to be openly and agressively critical of the leadership if you want to remain an ally.

When protesters in Saudi Arabia are silenced through violence from the states army or police and the media and politicians remain quiet, you have to wonder why.

SafeSurfer

HavingCrack wrote: »

But in the case of Libya I would argue that there is no ulterior motive. Gadaffi has only recently achieved rapapproachment with much of the world following his airline bombings and terrorist funding. The oil has been flowing freely from Libya for several years now. There is no need to start a war to gain access to it? Being a cynic one would say the west could have just let Gadaffi wipe out the rebels and then see the oil start rolling out again? I certainly don't trust Britain, France and the US on most things but I really don't see the ulterior motive in this particular case.

I never suggested oil as a motive. I suggested brownie points for the US in the arab world and boosts for Obama's and Sarkozy's re election campaigns.

Einhard

Offy wrote: »

Evidence? Im not the DPP, I dont require evidence!!!!!

Well why didn't you just say so from the start?! I wouldn't have had the cheek to ask that you back up your assertions if I had known about your infallible omniscience!

Offy

Einhard wrote: »

Well why didn't you just say so from the start?! I wouldn't have had the cheek to ask that you back up your assertions if I had known about your infallible omniscience!

hehe why thank you sir, tbh I judge from history and trends. If it looks like an orange, if it smells like an orange, if it tastes like an orange then it probably is an orange.

Einhard

Offy wrote: »

hehe why thank you sir, tbh I judge from history and trends. If it looks like an orange, if it smells like an orange, if it tastes like an orange then it probably is an orange.

What if it's a tangerine?!:eek:

SafeSurfer

Einhard wrote: »

Yes, but it was a limited response to a Libyan sponsered bombing of a Berlin nightclub frequented by American servicemen, rather than an attempt to remove Gadaffi.

I knew you'd bring it up though.:D

They specifically targeted Gadaffi in a "surgical strlike" and this wasn't an attaempt to remove Gadaffi? Ah now Einhard where is your credibility?

Offy

Einhard wrote: »

What if it's a tangerine?!:eek:

Then it probably came from America!

phosphate

K-9 wrote: »

You don't hear me?

Well, if you're concerned about oppressive regimes abusing the rights of people, why be selective? why not launch attacks on them all?

People tend to be very insular, even with access to the internet.

I could mention a few oppressive regimes which are supported by the west but since they're rarely if ever mentioned on the news, most people don't care.

phosphate

Einhard wrote: »

I think this is a completely amoral attitude to take! You're basically arguing against some form of positive intervention, because its not taken in all cases! How can you advocate such an approach? FFS, surely doing some good is better than doing no good at all?

Selling 1 billion dollars of weapons and doing business with a dictator like Gaddafi and then bombing him for humanitarian reasons -- that makes no sense.

Time will tell what the real motives are but I doubt very much there will be democracy in Libya anytime soon.....

Einhard

phosphate wrote: »

Well, if you're concerned about oppressive regimes abusing the rights of people, why be selective? why not launch attacks on them all?

People tend to be very insular, even with access to the internet.

I could mention a few oppressive regimes which are supported by the west but since they're rarely if ever mentioned on the news, most people don't care.

So you're basically arguing that, because the West hasn't attacked, say, Bahrain, to stop the oppression of citizens, it shouldn't attack Libya to stop the oppression of citizens. So, to do no good at all is better than doing some good? I think that's a horrible view to have to be honest, and I'm pretty sure that the rebels in Benghazi would probably join me in that.

K-9

phosphate wrote: »

Well, if you're concerned about oppressive regimes abusing the rights of people, why be selective? why not launch attacks on them all?

People tend to be very insular, even with access to the internet.

I could mention a few oppressive regimes which are supported by the west but since they're rarely if ever mentioned on the news, most people don't care.

I'd love the UN to be having air strikes on Israel, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Venezuala, Indonesia, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Russia and the UK oppressor.

ascanbe

Einhard wrote: »

Well it is the American way. Or do you have evidence that America just steals massive amounts of oil from foreign nations? Even in Iraq, a nation America supposedly invaded for oil and gas, most of the contracts agreed by the Iraqi government have gone to other nations, especially China. The Yanks aren't exactly getting a good return for their investment!!



Ah, but the Krauts haven't forced anything on us!

U.S. foreign policy has for quite a while now been dictated by what's good for Israel, rather than what's good for the U.S.
If, indeed, it's true that the U.S., though many U.S. companies with ties to the descison makers profited handsomely, hasn't profited in oil terms from that 'intervention', or doesn't stand to in the future, there are other questions regarding the possibilty of strategic positioning that still stand.

And the 'Krauts' didn't 'force' anything upon us; at least as far as we know, as the general public aren't deemed worthy of, indeed aren't by hastily introduced law entitled to, being privy to the knowledge of why the blanket bank guarantee was introduced and who, exactly, was involved in 'advising' our goverment to introduce it.
However, the EU, which is run mainly for the benift of the 'Krauts' amongst other countries and, in particular, for the banking overlords that hold sway, now stand to benifit handsomely from the 'legalised' pillaging of our country.
Funny, that.

Offy

K-9 wrote: »

I'd love the UN to be having air strikes on Israel, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Venezuala, Indonesia, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Russia and the UK oppressor.

WW3 here we come

K-9

ascanbe wrote: »

U.S. foreign policy has for quite a while now been dictated by what's good for Israel, rather than what's good for the U.S.

And the 'Krauts' didn't 'force' anything upon us; at least as far as we know, as the general public aren't deemed worthy of, indeed aren't by hastily introduced law entitled to, being privy to the knowledge of why the blanket bank guarantee was introduced and who, exactly, was involved in 'advising' our goverment to introduce it.
However, the EU, which is run mainly for the benift of the 'Krauts' amongst other countries and, in particular, for the banking overlords that hold sway, now stand to benifit handsomely from the 'legalised' pillaging of our country.
Funny, that.

Funnily enough the Germans stand to lose by CCTB but never let sense come into an oppressor debate.

phosphate

Einhard wrote: »

So you're basically arguing that, because the West hasn't attacked, say, Bahrain, to stop the oppression of citizens, it shouldn't attack Libya to stop the oppression of citizens. So, to do no good at all is better than doing some good? I think that's a horrible view to have to be honest, and I'm pretty sure that the rebels in Benghazi would probably join me in that.

What i'm arguing is that it's highly hypocritical and i'm suspicious of the true motives.

42 million americans are on foodstamps right now and you think Obama sincerely cares about Libyan civilians?

Do you really believe that? ...don't know what to say really.

K-9

Offy wrote: »

WW3 here we come

Sorry, I forgot N. Korea.

phosphate

K-9 wrote: »

I'd love the UN to be having air strikes on Israel, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Venezuala, Indonesia, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Russia and the UK oppressor.

I'd rather not get into it...there are 195 countries in the world.

Einhard

ascanbe wrote: »

U.S. foreign policy has for quite a while now been dictated by what's good for Israel, rather than what's good for the U.S.

Again, more sweeping assertions without a shred of supporting evidence. Israel's bête noire has long been a nuclear Iran. Iraq on the other hand, posed no serious threat to Israel. Yet, American decides to invade the latter, and take no military action against the former.

However, the EU, which is run mainly for the benift of the 'Krauts' amongst other countries and, in particular, for the banking overlords that hold sway, now stand to benifit handsomely from the 'legalised' pillaging of our country.
Funny, that.

Well, a few weeks ago, we had the chance to repudiate the EU/IMF bailout by voting from Sinn Fein or the ULA candidates. We didn't though. Sorry, democracy sucks eh?

Offy

Einhard wrote: »

Well, a few weeks ago, we had the chance to repudiate the EU/IMF bailout by voting from Sinn Fein or the ULA candidates. We didn't though. Sorry, democracy sucks eh?

I honestly think thats the worse argument Ive ever heard.

phosphate

Einhard wrote:

Again, more sweeping assertions without a shred of supporting evidence. Israel's bête noire has long been a nuclear Iran. Iraq on the other hand, posed no serious threat to Israel. Yet, American decides to invade the latter, and take no military action against the former.

If you understood US foreign policy and the economic situation in the US, you wouldn't need evidence.

Einhard

phosphate wrote: »

What i'm arguing is that it's highly hypocritical and i'm suspicious of the true motives.

42 million americans are on foodstamps right now and you think Obama sincerely cares about Libyan civilians?

Do you really believe that? ...don't know what to say really.

You do realise that people don;t automatically turn into uncaring monsters when elected to high office? I care about the Libyan civilians; many do here on boards; many do across the world- why on earth should Obama be immune from such a basic human emotion?

ascanbe

K-9 wrote: »

Funnily enough the Germans stand to lose by CCTB but never let sense come into an oppressor debate.

Stand to lose by what? I don't see how any country could 'stand to lose' by passing the entire burden of a debt that their banks bad loaning practices, and their goverments failure to regulate, make them at least equally culpable for, onto our shoulders.

Offy

Einhard wrote: »

You do realise that people don;t automatically turn into uncaring monsters when elected to high office? I care about the Libyan civilians; many do here on boards; many do across the world- why on earth should Obama be immune from such a basic human emotion?

and thats the second worse!!!!

phosphate

Einhard wrote:

You do realise that people don;t automatically turn into uncaring monsters when elected to high office? I care about the Libyan civilians; many do here on boards; many do across the world- why on earth should Obama be immune from such a basic human emotion?

I just believe if I were the US president, my priorities would be the US citizens, not the citizens of Libya...

Einhard

Offy wrote: »

I honestly think thats the worse argument Ive ever heard.

Why? Did we not have a chance to vote for SF and the ULA, who both promised to repudiate the deal?

phosphate wrote: »

If you understood US foreign policy and the economic situation in the US, you wouldn't need evidence.

Ah now, come on. I've offered evidence to support my point of view. In response, both you and Offy have stated that your opinions don't warrant evidence. Seriously, I like arguing with people on here, but if I was prone to accepting specious assertions based on faith alone I'd decamp to the Christianity forum. As it is, I'm gonna decamp to bed!