The War On Libya Is A Mistake.

Bobo78

mike65 wrote: »

Here we go again, the coalition of the stupid all jumping into an After Hours thread to attack a programme designed to stop a city being leveled by a nutty dictator.

Its not about the oil and gas, the west can buy as much as it likes from Libya and has been doing so for a good few years now.

Yeah, right :rolleyes:

LighterGuy

phosphate wrote: »

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

You're right.
by securing a futures supply of oil you are looking out for the benefits of your country. this is all about oil. But oil is just the nature of whats sought after. it all comes down to self-preservation at the end of the day.

Offy

Einhard wrote: »

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

We did indeed but to vote in a political party simply because they want to help another country is less than daft.

jackiebaron

SafeSurfer wrote: »

A military assault on Libya little over a month after the pro democracy protests commenced. Backing a military dictator with considerable firepower into a corner so suddenly with no way out for him is putting the lives of his own people and NATO troops in unnecessary danger.
Whatever happened to negotiations. If there isn't similiar military intervention in Baharin and Yemen it is nothing but a sham.

You think any NATO or US military is done to HELP people????

These bastards are trying to liberate the people of Venezuela from "Ming the Merciless" because he's giving them all jobs and healthcare!!!!

Gadaffi's a tyrant. We all know that. But the next scumbag in power will still be crushing women....only he'll be giving Libyan oil to the pentagon.

Offy

jackiebaron wrote: »

You think any NATO or US military is done to HELP people????

These bastards are trying to liberate the people of Venezuela from "Ming the Merciless" because he's giving them all jobs and healthcare!!!!

Gadaffi's a tyrant. We all know that. But the next scumbag in power will still be crushing women....only he'll be giving Libyan oil to the pentagon.

Well said.

Einhard

phosphate wrote: »

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

But they're not mutually exclusive. Concern for his fellow citizens hardly precludes concern for others. My priorities in life are my family and friends- I still have a level of empathy for others around the world, and sometimes I act on that. I don't see why I can juggle both, and politicians seemingly can't.

I know I said I'm off to bed, and I am- just needed to respond to this!!

LighterGuy

jackiebaron wrote: »

You think any NATO or US military is done to HELP people????

These bastards are trying to liberate the people of Venezuela from "Ming the Merciless" because he's giving them all jobs and healthcare!!!!

Gadaffi's a tyrant. We all know that. But the next scumbag in power will still be crushing women....only he'll be giving Libyan oil to the pentagon.

+1 well said.
this is all self-preservation by the yanks.

K-9

ascanbe wrote: »

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.

I mentioned CCTB in my answer.

I think you went of on a rant and fair play to you.

phosphate

Einhard wrote:

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!

I can't be bothered to engage in argument with someone on a topic who clearly hasn't taken the time out to educate themselves on that topic.

It's blatantly obvious the US seem more preoccupied with looking after Israel than it's own citizens.

The reason we have 'war on terror' is because Bin Laden opposed Israeli settlements on land which once belonged to palestinians.

Assuming you support the UN resolution for no-fly zone over Libya, you should also support the UN resolutions against Israel?

So do you support the UN resolutions against Israel?

LighterGuy

Einhard wrote: »

But they're not mutually exclusive. Concern for his fellow citizens hardly precludes concern for others. My priorities in life are my family and friends- I still have a level of empathy for others around the world, and sometimes I act on that. I don't see why I can juggle both, and politicians seemingly can't.

I know I said I'm off to bed, and I am- just needed to respond to this!!

I dont mean to be rude by quoting you :P

but the real truth of what you said is... your priorities in life is the self-preservation of yourself and your family. friends come second. everyone outside of that circle can sod themselves.

and as for empathy? .... empathy is bulls*it. its just a word. How many people lost sleep for what the japanese went through last week? ... because lets be honest, it doesnt effect me, you or any normal joe who doesnt have a loved one involved.

Rough world we live in.

ascanbe

K-9 wrote: »

I mentioned CCTB in my answer.

I think you went of on a rant and fair play to you.

What answer? I was replying to someone else, in my 'rant'. You were replying to my 'rant'.
If you wish to inform me as to what CCTB is, go ahead.

K-9

ascanbe wrote: »

What answer? I was replying to someone else, in my 'rant'. You were replying to my 'rant'.
If you wish to inform me as to what CCTB is, go ahead.

On AH, are you mad? It's a rather detailed subject with no easy answers.

Somebody was ranting about Krauts, you're on yer own son.

Oh and somebody mentioned the educate yourself line?

I'm so right you mustn't have edumacated yourself on it!

ascanbe

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.



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?

Just saw this reply; sorry for the tardy response.
A nuclear Iran? Do you really believe that's all they worry about. Why? Because that's what they make public? They aren't prone to strategising and taking a long-view; however mis-guided it might be?

Well, we never got to have a referedum on two of the most important decisions taken in the history of this country; the blanket bank-bailout and the setting up of NAMA.
To try and posit the general election as being a referendum on these issues in disingenuous in the extreme; i'll explain why, if you wish.
Democracy sucks? Not in my opinion.
And i seriously doubt the EU think that about their version of 'democracy', given that they can make you vote again if they don't like the initial result.

ascanbe

K-9 wrote: »

On AH, are you mad? It's a rather detailed subject with no easy answers.

Somebody was ranting about Krauts, you're on yer own son.

Oh and somebody mentioned the educate yourself line?

I'm so right you mustn't have edumacated yourself on it!

Well, you could just educate me regarding the meaning of this acronym, if you so wished, and we could proceed with the discussion; i conducted a brief search for myself but remained unenlightened. Perhaps, my googling skills are at fault.
However, i sense it's clear that you don't really wish to engage with the points i've made, there's ample sustenance there, and would rather just snipe at me.
That's your prerogative.

Metallitroll

mike65 wrote: »

Here we go again, the coalition of the stupid all jumping into an After Hours thread to attack a programme designed to stop a city being leveled by a nutty dictator.

Its not about the oil and gas, the west can buy as much as it likes from Libya and has been doing so for a good few years now.

mike , what really would have surprised me is yourself being opposed to this. but no, predictable as your view is in supporting the sinister brigade who tried the same shíte on over here, i know the marauding egotistical nature of brits and yanks abroad amongst the lesser perpetrators who were also curiously enough obsessed with colonialism abroad. and here's a coincidence, a lot of the time it translates as the most evil of sex crimes. many, many expats from both nations found to be wandering the ghettos of the far east for instance. it seems to be parallel to how largescale / active abroad their militaries are. winner takes it all is it, sense of go anywhere / take anything because i know true evils, and i know they vent themselves and i know the main perpetrators, in order.

forget about oil, gas etc because i know how they get their kicks. wargasm. anyone else doing this would not have bothered me so much; just brits and the yanks can go to hell. sincerely. and without even being the patriotic in the slightest any other irish that support these interventions can go and die too just be sure to never cross me in person. not having our nation stained with the same sense of entitlement and righteousness; not a hope. dictate, you attack, thats all they do - maybe someday someone will hopefully give em a reason to deploy "defence" forces on their own soil. sincerely

LondonIrish90

Metallitroll wrote: »

mike , what really would have surprised me is your british self being opposed to this. but no, predictable as your view is in proudly supporting your own sinister brigade who tried the same shíte on over here, i know the marauding egotistical nature of brits and yanks abroad amongst the lesser perpetrators who were also curiously enough obsessed with colonialism abroad. and here's a coincidence, a lot of the time it translates as the most evil of sex crimes. many, many expats from both nations found to be wandering the ghettos of the far east for instance. it seems to be parallel to how largescale / active abroad their militaries are. winner takes it all is it, sense of go anywhere / take anything because i know true evils, and i know they vent themselves and i know the main perpetrators, in order.

forget about oil, gas etc because i know how you get your kicks. wargasm. anyone else doing this would not have bothered me so much; just you and the yanks can go to hell. sincerely. and without even being the patriotic in the slightest any irish that support your interventions can go and die too just be sure to never cross me in person. not having our nation stained with the same sense of entitlement and righteousness; not a hope. you dictate, you attack, thats all you do - maybe someday someone will hopefully give you a reason to deploy "defence" forces on your own soil. sincerely

You must be a borderline idiot.

The UN have sanctioned the strikes.

The Arab league have supported the strikes.

The British Prime Minister and American President have put across clear, justifiable, moral reasons for using decisive military actions against the Gadaffi regime.

You appear to be something of a hypocrite also, a pacifist who wishes for the destruction of the UK and the USA? Two nations, with populations of about 60 million and 300 million respectively, who are diplomatic allys of Ireland?

PS - If someone is giving Britain a reason to use her military to defend her own soil, then you better duck for cover and dust off the ol' tin hat over there, because world war 3 will have broken out.

Overheal

SafeSurfer wrote: »

In 4 weeks?

Yes, during which the rebel force has almost been completely defeated without outside support. Now they stand a chance.

So why not support all clamours for democracy?

Not all clamours for democracy have such a fighting chance. And for this fighting chance they won the support of the UN Forces. Today alone I am told US Navy ships launched 114 Tomohawk Cruise Missiles, each with a unit cost of approximately $564,000 each. That's not even including the cost in logistics of getting the ships, their missiles, and crew to the theatre, and then giving out combat pay and all manner of other things.

Is it for oil? Yes and No. There would have to be reasonable assurances that the action justified the expense. To actually undo all the wrongs in the world on pure morality would bankrupt the United States like the Cold War bankrupted USSR. The cost of 2 foreign wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, is already the source of much debate. If it was to make a profit I doubt we'd be running such a high deficit; into the Trillions of dollars. Not half of which came from stupidity spending post-2008.

That's more or less why we have no interest in deploying ground forces, we can't afford to be there.

phosphate wrote: »

Why would I?

Oppressive regimes all over the world attack their people everyday and I don't hear you up in arms about it.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

If nobody had done nothing we wouldn't be discussing it.

Yeah, people would. And have.

'troll wrote:

forget about oil, gas etc because i know how they get their kicks. wargasm. anyone else doing this would not have bothered me so much; just brits and the yanks can go to hell.

We helped, but I'm pretty sure it's the French that have been spearheading this thing. Open a broadsheet sometime.

skelliser

Some hpyocrites on this thread!

wonder what ye would be saying in a months time after Gaddafi slaughters 1000's more of his own people?!

where was the UN,NATO ETC?
why didnt the yanks and UK do anything to stop this madman etc?

was it right that NATO stepped up in 1999 and took out Milošević and stopped him from slaughtering tens of thousands in kosovo?
yes, yes it was. And the last time i looked there was feck all oil in the balkans. but when your on a roll bashing the superpowers its easy to overlook
that campaign!

Da Shins Kelly

I'm glad that the UN are taking some action, but I can't get rid of the feeling that this is going to turn into another one of these endless wars in the Middle East that don't benefit anyone except the weapon manufacturers.

Metallitroll

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

You must be a borderline idiot.

The UN have sanctioned the strikes.

The Arab league have supported the strikes.

PS - If someone is giving Britain a reason to use her military to defend her own soil, then you better duck for cover and dust off the ol' tin hat over there, because world war 3 will have broken out.

hilary clinton prompted all strikes. eager little beaver, the UN and france intervened to hopefully stave off further complications but america/ us waiting in the wings salivating, couldn't wait to deploy.

the arab league is a joke, don't even

who's she? is ireland a he or what then. dear old blighty, the graceful old dame, putting manners on folk from behind the cover of captain america's impenetrable shield. borderline is better than full-on, you should know

Wompa1

I read on the Telegraphs website yesterday that if efforts fail and thousands die it will be Americas fault for hesitating and not backing up France and Britain sooner. Suggesting Obama was of the mindset that Americans were paying to fight all the worlds battles and as such can't afford the social benefits for it's people like Europe can.

Personally I think it's BS and like on here, it's a journalist looking to throw America under the bus to seem like a non-conformist. When will this penis envy end?

ejmaztec

Metallitroll wrote: »

hilary clinton prompted all strikes. eager little beaver, the UN and france intervened to hopefully stave off further complications but america/ us waiting in the wings salivating, couldn't wait to deploy.

the arab league is a joke, don't even

who's she? is ireland a he or what then. dear old blighty, the graceful old dame, putting manners on folk from behind the cover of captain america's impenetrable shield. borderline is better than full-on, you should know

You obviously like spending €1.50+ for a litre of unleaded. There are probably more people hating the price of fuel than there are hating the British and Americans.

It's more cost-effective to the European participants if the Americans use cruise missiles, as this means that the French and British won't have to part with tax-payers' money to buy the missiles from the US.

Freddie59

LighterGuy wrote: »

You're right.
by securing a futures supply of oil you are looking out for the benefits of your country. this is all about oil. But oil is just the nature of whats sought after. it all comes down to self-preservation at the end of the day.

The US produces 40% of its oil. Out of the other 60% it's biggest supplier is......wait for it..........Canada. Has anyone even pondered the thought that it is EUROPE'S oil supplies that they're protecting.

Never ceases to amaze me how the same anti-America brigade will jump into their cars tomorrow not even wondering where that fuel at the pumps comes from. Typical.:rolleyes:

As Skelliser says, the US can't win. The do nothing - they're guilty. They act - they're guilty.

They sacrificed millions of their own to liberate Europe.

Thank God they're there. The alternative doesn't bear thinking about.

Freddie59

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

Two nations, with populations of about 60 million and 300 million respectively, who are diplomatic allys of Ireland?

And one - the US - without whom this world would be a much darker place. Long may they reign.;)

Overheal

Freddie59 wrote: »

The US produces 40% of its oil. Out of the other 60% it's biggest supplier is......wait for it..........Canada. Has anyone even pondered the thought that it is EUROPE'S oil supplies that they're protecting.

I actually understand that Ireland is Libya's largest trading partner.

Mike 1972

Kill Everybody

Its for their own good

(Rabble Rabble)

Nodin

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So they won't be killing any civilians themselves then.

Another red herring?

You stated

The resolution seeks to enforce a no fly zone and the French attack tanks with no anti aircraft capability, go figure.

I have explained why.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Stratigicaly it leaves them nicely placed to keep manners on Iran.

Do yourself a second favour, and consult a map.

Freddy59 wrote:

They sacrificed millions of their own to liberate Europe.

Nope. Do a bit of research there.

Freddy59 wrote:

And one - the US - without whom this world would be a much darker place.

I'm sure thats a consolation to the people in Latin America and across the world who've suffered from US backed coups and dictatorships.

SafeSurfer

Freddie59 wrote: »

The US produces 40% of its oil. Out of the other 60% it's biggest supplier is......wait for it..........Canada. Has anyone even pondered the thought that it is EUROPE'S oil supplies that they're protecting.

Never ceases to amaze me how the same anti-America brigade will jump into their cars tomorrow not even wondering where that fuel at the pumps comes from. Typical.:rolleyes:

As Skelliser says, the US can't win. The do nothing - they're guilty. They act - they're guilty.

They sacrificed millions of their own to liberate Europe.

Thank God they're there. The alternative doesn't bear thinking about.

Total US losses in WW2 were 418,500 in both theatres of war, including civilians. Not the "millions" to liberate Europe you speak of.

It's disappointing if not surprising that anyone questioning the rush to military intervention is immediately branded as anti-American.

SafeSurfer

Nodin wrote: »

Do yourself a second favour, and consult a map.

I have consulted a map Nodin and Iraq is beside Iran.

Overheal

The resolution seeks to enforce a no fly zone and the French attack tanks with no anti aircraft capability, go figure.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm

Authorizing 'All Necessary Measures' to Protect Civilians.

Tanks rolling into Benghazi and clearing their cannons are a direct threat to Civilians.

Nope. Do a bit of research there.

418,500 Americans; 567,000 French; 450,700 British.

200 Irish.

You're Welcome.